diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'old/62878-0.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | old/62878-0.txt | 21020 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 21020 deletions
diff --git a/old/62878-0.txt b/old/62878-0.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 838e8c3..0000000 --- a/old/62878-0.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,21020 +0,0 @@ -The Project Gutenberg EBook of Geoffrey de Mandeville, by John Horace Round - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most -other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions -whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of -the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at -www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you'll have -to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this ebook. - -Title: Geoffrey de Mandeville - A study of the Anarchy - -Author: John Horace Round - -Release Date: August 8, 2020 [EBook #62878] - -Language: English - -Character set encoding: UTF-8 - -*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK GEOFFREY DE MANDEVILLE *** - - - - -Produced by MWS, Chris Pinfield and the Online Distributed -Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was -produced from images generously made available by The -Internet Archive) - - - - - -Transcriber's Note - -Obvious printer errors have been corrected. Hyphenation has been -rationalised. Inconsistent spelling (including accents and capitals) has -been retained. Not all accents display properly in all applications. - -Small capitals have been replaced by full capitals. Italics are -indicated by _underscores_. Text in multiple columns has been rearranged -into single columns. - -The sidenotes in Chapter 4 have been transferred to the text, and are -bracketed by ►pointers◄. Genealogical tables in Appendices K and U have -been split into two in order to reduce their widh. - -Some references to years are encased in square brackets, as for example -[1136]. To avoid confusion with the numbered footnotes, these references -have instead been encased in rounded brackets. - - - - - GEOFFREY DE MANDEVILLE - - [Illustration: - FACSIMILE OF CHARTER CREATING GEOFFREY DE MANDEVILLE EARL OF ESSEX. - _See p._ 51.] - - - GEOFFREY DE MANDEVILLE - _A STUDY OF THE ANARCHY_ - - BY - J. H. ROUND, M.A. - AUTHOR OF "THE EARLY LIFE OF ANNE BOLEYN: A CRITICAL ESSAY" - -"Anno incarnationis Dominicæ millesimo centesimo quadragesimo primo -inextricabilem labyrinthum rerum et negotiorum quæ acciderunt in Anglia -aggredior evolvere."—_William of Malmesbury_ - - LONDON - LONGMANS, GREEN, & CO. - AND NEW YORK: 15 EAST 16ᵗʰ STREET - -1892 - -_All rights reserved_ - - - - -PREFACE - - -"The reign of Stephen," in the words of our greatest living historian, -"is one of the most important in our whole history, as exemplifying the -working of causes and principles which had no other opportunity of -exhibiting their real tendencies." To illustrate in detail the working -of those principles to which the Bishop of Oxford thus refers, is the -chief object I have set before myself in these pages. For this purpose I -have chosen, to form the basis of my narrative, the career of Geoffrey -de Mandeville, as the most perfect and typical presentment of the feudal -and anarchic spirit that stamps the reign of Stephen. By fixing our -glance upon one man, and by tracing his policy and its fruits, it is -possible to gain a clearer perception of the true tendencies at work, -and to obtain a firmer grasp of the essential principles involved. But, -while availing myself of Geoffrey's career to give unity to my theme, I -have not scrupled to introduce, from all available sources, any -materials bearing on the period known as the Anarchy, or illustrating -the points raised by the charters with which I deal. - -The headings of my chapters express a fact upon which I cannot too -strongly insist, namely, that the charters granted to Geoffrey are the -very backbone of my work. By those charters it must stand or fall: for -on their relation and their evidence the whole narrative is built. If -the evidence of these documents is accepted, and the relation I have -assigned to them established, it will, I trust, encourage the study of -charters and their evidence, "as enabling the student both to amplify -and to check such scanty knowledge as we now possess of the times to -which they relate."[1] It will also result in the contribution of some -new facts to English history, and break, as it were, by the wayside, a -few stones towards the road on which future historians will travel. - -Among the subjects on which I shall endeavour to throw some fresh light -are problems of constitutional and institutional interest, such as the -title to the English Crown, the origin and character of earldoms -(especially the earldom of Arundel), the development of the fiscal -system, and the early administration of London. I would also invite -attention to such points as the appeal of the Empress to Rome in 1136, -her intended coronation at Westminster in 1141, the unknown Oxford -intrigue of 1142, the new theory on Norman castles suggested by -Geoffrey's charters, and the genealogical discoveries in the Appendix on -Gervase de Cornhill. The prominent part that the Earl of Gloucester -played in the events of which I write may justify the inclusion of an -essay on the creation of his historic earldom, which has, in the main, -already appeared in another quarter. - -In the words of Mr. Eyton, "the dispersion of error is the first step in -the discovery of truth."[2] Cordially adopting this maxim, I have -endeavoured throughout to correct errors and dispose of existing -misconceptions. To "dare to be accurate" is, as Mr. Freeman so often -reminds us, neither popular nor pleasant. It is easier to prophesy -smooth things, and to accept without question the errors of others, in -the spirit of mutual admiration. But I would repeat that "boast as we -may of the achievements of our new scientific school, we are still, as I -have urged, behind the Germans, so far, at least, as accuracy is -concerned." If my criticism be deemed harsh, I may plead with Newman -that, in controversy, "I have ever felt from experience that no one -would believe me to be in earnest if I spoke calmly." The public is slow -to believe that writers who have gained its ear are themselves often in -error and, by the weight of their authority, lead others astray. At the -same time, I would earnestly insist that if, in the light of new -evidence, I have found myself compelled to differ from the conclusions -even of Dr. Stubbs, it in no way impeaches the accuracy of that -unrivalled scholar, the profundity of whose learning and the soundness -of whose judgment can only be appreciated by those who have followed him -in the same field. - -The ill-health which has so long postponed the completion and appearance -of this work is responsible for some shortcomings of which no one is -more conscious than myself. It has been necessary to correct the -proof-sheets at a distance from works of reference, and indeed from -England, while the length of time that has elapsed since the bulk of the -work was composed is such that two or three new books bearing upon the -same period have appeared in the mean while. Of these I would specially -mention Mr. Howlett's contributions to the Rolls Series, and Miss -Norgate's well-known _England under the Angevin Kings_. Mr. Howlett's -knowledge of the period, and especially of its MS. authorities, is of a -quite exceptional character, while Miss Norgate's useful and painstaking -work, which enjoys the advantage of a style that one cannot hope to -rival, is a most welcome addition to our historical literature. To Dr. -Stubbs, also, we are indebted for a new edition of William of -Malmesbury. As I had employed for that chronicler and for the _Gesta -Stephani_ the English Historical Society's editions, my references are -made to them, except where they are specially assigned to those editions -by Dr. Stubbs and Mr. Howlett which have since appeared. - -A few points of detail should, perhaps, be mentioned. The text of -transcripts has been scrupulously preserved, even where it seemed -corrupt; and all my extensions as to which any possible question could -arise are enclosed in square brackets. The so-called "new style" has -been adhered to throughout: that is to say, the dates given are those of -the true historical year, irrespective of the wholly artificial -reckoning from March 25. The form "fitz," denounced by purists, has been -retained as a necessary convention, the admirable _Calendar of Patent -Rolls_, now in course of publication, having demonstrated the -impossibility of devising a satisfactory substitute. As to the spelling -of Christian names, no attempt has been made to produce that pedantic -uniformity which, in the twelfth century, was unknown. It is hoped that -the index may be found serviceable and complete. The allusions to "the -lost volume of the Great Coucher" (of the duchy of Lancaster) are based -on references to that compilation by seventeenth-century transcribers, -which cannot be identified in the volumes now preserved. It is to be -feared that the volume most in request among antiquaries may, in those -days, have been "lent out" (cf. p. 183), with the usual result. I am -anxious to call attention to its existence in the hope of its ultimate -recovery. - -There remains the pleasant task of tendering my thanks to Mr. Hubert -Hall, of H.M.'s Public Record Office, and Mr. F. Bickley, of the MS. -Department, British Museum, for their invariable courtesy and assistance -in the course of my researches. To Mr. Douglass Round I am indebted for -several useful suggestions, and for much valuable help in passing these -pages through the press. - - J. H. ROUND. - PAU, - _Christmas_, 1891. - -[1] Preface to my _Ancient Charters_ (Pipe-Roll Society). - -[2] _Staffordshire Survey_, p. 277. - - - - -CONTENTS - - - PAGE - CHAPTER I. - THE ACCESSION OF STEPHEN 1 - - CHAPTER II. - THE FIRST CHARTER OF THE KING 37 - - CHAPTER III. - TRIUMPH OF THE EMPRESS 55 - - CHAPTER IV. - THE FIRST CHARTER OF THE EMPRESS 81 - - CHAPTER V. - THE LOST CHARTER OF THE QUEEN 114 - - CHAPTER VI. - THE ROUT OF WINCHESTER 123 - - CHAPTER VII. - THE SECOND CHARTER OF THE KING 136 - - CHAPTER VIII. - THE SECOND CHARTER OF THE EMPRESS 163 - - CHAPTER IX. - FALL AND DEATH OF GEOFFREY 201 - - CHAPTER X. - THE EARLDOM OF ESSEX 227 - - -APPENDICES. - - A. STEPHEN'S TREATY WITH THE LONDONERS 247 - - B. THE APPEAL TO ROME IN 1136 250 - - C. THE EASTER COURT OF 1136 262 - - D. THE "FISCAL" EARLS 267 - - E. THE ARRIVAL OF THE EMPRESS 278 - - F. THE DEFECTION OF MILES OF GLOUCESTER 284 - - G. CHARTER OF THE EMPRESS TO ROGER DE VALOINES 286 - - H. THE "TERTIUS DENARIUS" 287 - - I. "VICECOMITES" AND "CUSTODES" 297 - - J. THE GREAT SEAL OF THE EMPRESS 299 - - K. GERVASE DE CORNHILL 304 - - L. CHARTER OF THE EMPRESS TO WILLIAM DE BEAUCHAMP 313 - - M. THE EARLDOM OF ARUNDEL 316 - - N. ROBERT DE VERE 326 - - O. "TOWER" AND "CASTLE" 328 - - P. THE EARLY ADMINISTRATION OF LONDON 347 - - Q. OSBERTUS OCTODENARII 374 - - R. THE FOREST OF ESSEX 376 - - S. THE TREATY OF ALLIANCE BETWEEN THE EARLS OF HEREFORD AND - GLOUCESTER 379 - - T. "AFFIDATIO IN MANU" 384 - - U. THE FAMILIES OF MANDEVILLE AND DE VERE 388 - - V. WILLIAM OF ARQUES 397 - - X. ROGER "DE RAMIS" 399 - - Y. THE FIRST AND SECOND VISITS OF HENRY II. TO ENGLAND 405 - - Z. BISHOP NIGEL AT ROME 411 - - AA. "TENSERIE" 414 - - BB. THE EMPRESS'S CHARTER TO GEOFFREY RIDEL 417 - - - EXCURSUS. - THE CREATION OF THE EARLDOM OF GLOUCESTER 420 - - ADDENDA 437 - - INDEX 441 - - - - - CHAPTER I. - THE ACCESSION OF STEPHEN. - - -Before approaching that struggle between King Stephen and his rival, the -Empress Maud, with which this work is mainly concerned, it is desirable -to examine the peculiar conditions of Stephen's accession to the crown, -determining, as they did, his position as king, and supplying, we shall -find, the master-key to the anomalous character of his reign. - -The actual facts of the case are happily beyond question. From the -moment of his uncle's death, as Dr. Stubbs truly observes, "the -succession was treated as an open question."[3] Stephen, quick to see -his chance, made a bold stroke for the crown. The wind was in his -favour, and, with a handful of comrades, he landed on the shores of -Kent.[4] His first reception was not encouraging: Dover refused him -admission, and Canterbury closed her gates.[5] On this Dr. Stubbs thus -comments:— - - "At Dover and at Canterbury he was received with sullen silence. The - men of Kent had no love for the stranger who came, as his predecessor - Eustace had done, to trouble the land."[6] - -But "the men of Kent" were faithful to Stephen, when all others forsook -him, and, remembering this, one would hardly expect to find in them his -chief opponents. Nor, indeed, were they. Our great historian, when he -wrote thus, must, I venture to think, have overlooked the passage in -Ordericus (v. 110), from which we learn, incidentally, that Canterbury -and Dover were among those fortresses which the Earl of Gloucester held -by his father's gift.[7] It is, therefore, not surprising that Stephen -should have met with this reception at the hands of the lieutenants of -his arch-rival. It might, indeed, be thought that the prescient king had -of set purpose placed these keys of the road to London in the hands of -one whom he could trust to uphold his cherished scheme.[8] - -Stephen, undiscouraged by these incidents, pushed on rapidly to London. -The news of his approach had gone before him, and the citizens flocked -to meet him. By them, as is well known, he was promptly chosen to be -king, on the plea that a king was needed to fill the vacant throne, and -that the right to elect one was specially vested in themselves.[9] The -point, however, that I would here insist on, for it seems to have been -scarcely noticed, is that this election appears to have been essentially -conditional, and to have been preceded by an agreement with the -citizens.[10] The bearing of this will be shown below. - -There is another noteworthy point which would seem to have escaped -observation. It is distinctly implied by William of Malmesbury that the -primate, seizing his opportunity, on Stephen's appearance in London, had -extorted from him, as a preliminary to his recognition, as Maurice had -done from Henry at his coronation, and as Henry of Winchester was, -later, to do in the case of the Empress, an oath to restore the Church -her "liberty," a phrase of which the meaning is well known. Stephen, he -adds, on reaching Winchester, was released from this oath by his -brother, who himself "went bail" (made himself responsible) for -Stephen's satisfactory behaviour to the Church.[11] It is, surely, to -this incident that Henry so pointedly alludes in his speech at the -election of the Empress.[12] It can only, I think, be explained on the -hypothesis that Stephen chafed beneath the oath he had taken, and begged -his brother to set him free. If so, the attempt was vain, for he had, we -shall find, to bind himself anew on the occasion of his Oxford -charter.[13] - -At Winchester the citizens, headed by their bishop, came forth from the -city to greet him, but this reception must not be confused (as it is by -Mr. Freeman) with his election by the citizens of London.[14] His -brother, needless to say, met him with an eager welcome, and the main -object of his visit was attained when William de Pont de l'Arche, who -had shrunk, till his arrival, from embracing his cause, now, in concert -with the head of the administration, Roger, Bishop of Salisbury, placed -at his disposal the royal castle, with the treasury and all that it -contained.[15] - -Thus strengthened, he returned to London for coronation at the hands of -the primate. Dr. Stubbs observes that "he returned to London for _formal -election_ and coronation."[16] His authority for that statement is -Gervase (i. 94), who certainly asserts it distinctly.[17] But it will be -found that he, who was not a contemporary, is the only authority for -this second election, and, moreover, that he ignores the first, as well -as the visit to Winchester, thus mixing up the two episodes, between -which that visit intervened. Of course this opens the wider question as -to whether the actual election, in such cases, took place at the -coronation itself or on a previous occasion. This may, perhaps, be a -matter of opinion; but in the preceding instance, that of Henry I., the -election was admittedly that which took place at Winchester, and was -previous to and unconnected with the actual coronation itself.[18] From -this point of view, the presentation of the king to the people at his -coronation would assume the aspect of a ratification of the election -previously conducted. The point is here chiefly of importance as -affecting the validity of Stephen's election. If his only election was -that which the citizens of London conducted, it was, to say the least, -"informally transacted."[19] Nor was the attendance of magnates at the -ceremony such as to improve its character. It was, as Dr. Stubbs truly -says, "but a poor substitute for the great councils which had attended -the summons of William and Henry."[20] The chroniclers are here -unsatisfactory. Henry of Huntingdon is rhetorical and vague; John of -Hexham leaves us little wiser;[21] the Continuator of Florence indeed -states that Stephen, when crowned, kept his Christmas court "cum totius -Angliæ primoribus" (p. 95), but even the author of the _Gesta_ implies -that the primate's scruples were largely due to the paucity of magnates -present.[22] William of Malmesbury alone is precise,[23] possibly -because an adversary of Stephen could alone afford to be so, and his -testimony, we shall find, is singularly confirmed by independent charter -evidence (p. 11). - -It was at this stage that an attempt was made to dispel the scruples -caused by Stephen's breach of his oath to the late king. The hint, in -the _Gesta_, that Henry, on his deathbed, had repented of his act in -extorting that oath,[24] is amplified by Gervase into a story that he -had released his barons from its bond,[25] while Ralph "de Diceto" -represents the assertion as nothing less than that the late king had -actually disinherited the Empress, and made Stephen his heir in her -stead.[26] It should be noticed that these last two writers, in their -statement that this story was proved by Hugh Bigod on oath, are -confirmed by the independent evidence of the _Historia Pontificalis_.[27] - -The importance of securing, as quickly as possible, the performance of -the ceremony of coronation is well brought out by the author of the -_Gesta_ in the arguments of Stephen's friends when combating the -primate's scruples. They urged that it would _ipso facto_ put an end to -all question as to the validity of his election.[28] The advantage, in -short, of "snatching" a coronation was that, in the language of modern -diplomacy, of securing a _fait accompli_. Election was a matter of -opinion; coronation a matter of fact. Or, to employ another expression, -it was the "outward and visible sign" that a king had begun his reign. -Its important bearing is well seen in the case of the Conqueror himself. -Dr. Stubbs observes, with his usual judgment, that "the ceremony was -understood as bestowing the divine ratification on the election that had -preceded it."[29] Now, the fact that the performance of this essential -ceremony was, of course, wholly in the hands of the Church, in whose -power, therefore, it always was to perform or to withhold it at its -pleasure, appears to me to have naturally led to the growing assumption -that we now meet with, the claim, based on a confusion of the ceremony -with the actual election itself, that it was for the Church to elect the -king. This claim, which in the case of Stephen (1136) seems to have been -only inchoate,[30] appears at the time of his capture (1141) in a fully -developed form,[31] the circumstances of the time having enabled the -Church to increase its power in the State with perhaps unexampled -rapidity. - -May it not have been this development, together with his own experience, -that led Stephen to press for the coronation of his son Eustace in his -lifetime (1152)? In this attempted innovation he was, indeed, defeated -by the Church, but the lesson was not lost. Henry I., unlike his -contemporaries, had never taken this precaution, and Henry II., warned -by his example, succeeded in obtaining the coronation of his heir (1170) -in the teeth of Becket's endeavours to forbid the act, and so to uphold -the veto of the Church. - -Prevailed upon, at length, to perform the ceremony, the primate seized -the opportunity of extorting from the eager king (besides a charter of -liberties) a renewal of his former oath to protect the rights of the -Church. The oath which Henry had sworn at his coronation, and which Maud -had to swear at her election, Stephen had to swear, it seems, at both, -though not till the Oxford charter was it committed, in his case, to -writing.[32] - -We now approach an episode unknown to all our historians.[33] - -The Empress, on her side, had not been idle; she had despatched an envoy -to the papal court, in the person of the Bishop of Angers, to appeal her -rival of (1) defrauding her of her right, and (2) breach of his solemn -oath. Had this been known to Mr. Freeman, he would, it is safe to -assert, have been fascinated by the really singular coincidence between -the circumstances of 1136 and of 1066. In each case, of the rivals for -the throne, the one based his pretensions on (1) kinship, fortified by -(2) an oath to secure his succession, which had been taken by his -opponent himself; while the other rested his claims on election duly -followed by coronation. In each case the election was fairly open to -question; in Harold's, because (_pace_ Mr. Freeman) he was _not_ a -legitimate candidate; in Stephen's, because, though a qualified -candidate, his election had been most informal. In each case the ousted -claimant appealed to the papal court, and, in each case, on the same -grounds, viz. (1) the kinship, (2) the broken oath. In each case the -successful party was opposed by a particular cardinal, a fact which we -learn, in each case, from later and incidental mention. And in each case -that cardinal became, afterwards, pope. But here the parallel ends. -Stephen accepted, where Harold had (so far as we know) rejected, the -jurisdiction of the Court of Rome. We may assign this difference to the -closer connection between Rome and England in Stephen's day, or we may -see in it proof that Stephen was the more politic of the two. For his -action was justified by its success. There has been, on this point, no -small misconception. Harold has been praised for possessing, and Stephen -blamed for lacking, a sense of his kingly dignity. But _læsio fidei_ was -essentially a matter for courts Christian, and thus for the highest of -them all, at Rome. Again, inheritance, so far as inheritance affected -the question, was brought in many ways within the purview of the courts -Christian, as, for instance, in the case of the alleged illegitimacy of -Maud. Moreover, in 1136, the pope, though circumstances played into his -hands, advanced no such pretension as his successor in the days of John. -His attitude was not that of an overlord to a dependent fief: he made no -claim to dispose of the realm of England. Sitting as judge in a -spiritual court, he listened to the charges brought by Maud against -Stephen in his personal capacity, and, without formally acquitting him, -declined to pronounce him guilty. - -Though the king was pleased to describe the papal letter which followed -as a "confirmation" of his right to the throne, it was, strictly, -nothing of the kind. It was simply, in the language of modern diplomacy, -his "recognition" by the pope as king. If Ferdinand, elected Prince of -Bulgaria, were to be recognized as such by a foreign power, that action -would neither alter his status relatively to any other power, nor would -it imply the least claim to dispose of the Bulgarian crown. Or, again, -to take a mediæval illustration, the recognition as pope by an English -king of one of two rival claimants for the papacy would neither affect -any other king, nor constitute a claim to dispose of the papal tiara. -Stephen, however, was naturally eager to make the most of the papal -action, especially when he found in his oath to the Empress the most -formidable obstacle to his acceptance. The sanction of the Church would -silence the reproach that he was occupying the throne as a perjured man. -Hence the clause in his Oxford charter. To the advantage which this -letter gave him Stephen shrewdly clung, and when Geoffrey summoned him, -in later years, "to an investigation of his claims before the papal -court," he promptly retorted that Rome had already heard the case.[34] -He turned, in fact, the tables on his appellant by calling on Geoffrey -to justify his occupation of the Duchy and of the Western counties in -the teeth of the papal confirmation of his own right to the throne. - -We now pass from Westminster to Reading, whither, after Christmas, -Stephen proceeded, to attend his uncle's funeral.[35] The corpse, says -the Continuator, was attended "non modica stipatus nobilium catervâ." -The meeting of Stephen with these nobles is an episode of considerable -importance. "It is probable," says Dr. Stubbs, "that it furnished an -opportunity of obtaining some vague promises from Stephen."[36] But the -learned writer here alludes to the subsequent promises at Oxford. What I -am concerned with is the meeting at Reading. I proceed, therefore, to -quote _in extenso_ a charter which must have passed on this occasion, -and which, this being so, is of great value and interest.[37] - - Carta Stephani regis Angliæ facta Miloni Gloec' de honore Gloecestr' et - Brekon'. - - S. rex Angl. Archiepĩs Epĩs Abbatibus. Com̃. Baroñ. vic. præpositis, - Ministris et omnibus fidelibus suis Francis et Anglicis totius Angliæ - et Walliæ Saɫ. sciatis me reddidisse et concessisse Miloni Gloecestriæ - et hæredibus suis post eum in feoᵭ et hæreditate totum honorem suum de - Gloec', et de Brechenion, et omnes terras suas et tenaturas suas in - vicecomitatibus et aliis rebus, sicut eas tenuit die quâ rex Henricus - fuit vivus et mortuus. Quare volo et præcipio quod bene et honorifice - et libere teneat in bosco et plano et pratis et pasturis et aquis et - mariscis, in molendinis et piscariis, cum Thol et Theam et - infangenetheof, et cum omnibus aliis libertatibus et consuetudinibus - quibus unqũ melius et liberius tenuit tempore regis Henrici. Et sciatis - q̃m ego ut dñs et Rex, convencionavi ei sicut Baroni et Justiciario meo - quod eum in placitum non ponero quamdiu vixero de aliquâ tenatura ꝗ̃ - tenuisset die quâ Rex Henricus fuit vivus et mortuus, neq' hæredem - suum. T. Arch. Cantuar. et Epõ Wintoñ. et Epõ Sar'. et H. Big̃ et Roᵬ - filio Ricardi et Ing̃ de Sai. et W. de Pont̃ et P. filio Joħ. Apud - Rading̃. - - Sub magno sigillo suo. - -The reflections suggested by this charter are many and most instructive. -Firstly, we have here the most emphatic corroboration of the evidence of -William of Malmesbury. The four first witnesses comprise the three -bishops who, according to him, conducted Stephen's coronation, together -with the notorious Hugh Bigod, to whose timely assurance that coronation -was so largely due. The four others are Robert fitz Richard, whom we -shall find present at the Easter court, attesting a charter as a royal -chamberlain; Enguerrand de Sai, the lord of Clun, who had probably come -with Payne fitz John; William de Pont de l'Arche, whom we met at -Winchester; and Payne fitz John. The impression conveyed by this charter -is certainly that Stephen had as yet been joined by few of the magnates, -and had still to be content with the handful by whom his coronation had -been attended. - -An important addition is, however, represented by the grantee, Miles of -Gloucester, and the witness Payne fitz John. The former was a man of -great power, both of himself and from his connection with the Earl of -Gloucester, in the west of England and in Wales. The latter is -represented by the author of the _Gesta_ as acting with him at this -juncture.[38] It should, however, be noted, as important in its bearing -on the chronology of this able writer, that he places the adhesion of -these two barons (p. 15) considerably after that of the Earl of -Gloucester (p. 8), whereas the case was precisely the contrary, the earl -not submitting to Stephen till some time later on. Both these magnates -appear in attendance at Stephen's Easter court (_vide infra_), and again -as witnesses to his Oxford charter. The part, however, in the coming -struggle which Miles of Gloucester was destined to play, was such that -it is most important to learn the circumstances and the date of his -adhesion to the king. His companion, Payne fitz John, was slain, -fighting the Welsh, in the spring of the following year.[39] - -It is a singular fact that, in addition to the charter I have here -given, another charter was granted to Miles of Gloucester by the king, -which, being similarly tested at Reading, probably passed on this -occasion. The subject of the grant is the same, but the terms are more -precise, the constableship of Gloucester Castle, with the hereditary -estates of his house, being specially mentioned.[40] Though both these -charters were entered in the Great Coucher (in the volume now missing), -the latter alone is referred to by Dugdale, from whose transcript it has -been printed by Madox.[41] Though the names of the witnesses are there -omitted, those of the six leading witnesses are supplied by an abstract -which is elsewhere found. Three of these are among those who attest the -other charter—Robert fitz Richard, Hugh Bigod, and Enguerrand de Sai; -but the other three names are new, being Robert de Ferrers, afterwards -Earl of Derby, Baldwin de Clare, the spokesman of Stephen's host at -Lincoln (see p. 148), and (Walter) fitz Richard, who afterwards appears -in attendance at the Easter court.[42] These three barons should -therefore be added to the list of those who were at Reading with the -king.[43] - -Possibly, however, the most instructive feature to be found in each -charter is the striking illustration it affords of the method by which -Stephen procured the adhesion of the turbulent and ambitious magnates. -It is not so much a grant from a king to a subject as a _convencio_ -between equal powers. But especially would I invite attention to the -words "ut dominus et Rex."[44] I see in them at once the symbol and the -outcome of "the Norman idea of royalty." In his learned and masterly -analysis of this subject, a passage which cannot be too closely studied, -Dr. Stubbs shows us, with felicitous clearness, the twin factors of -Norman kinghood, its royal and its feudal aspects.[45] Surely in the -expression "dominus et Rex" (_alias_ "Rex et dominus") we have in actual -words the exponent of this double character.[46] And, more than this, we -have here the needful and striking parallel which will illustrate and -illumine the action of the Empress, so strangely overlooked or -misunderstood, when she ordered herself, at Winchester, to be proclaimed -"DOMINA ET REGINA." - -Henry of Huntingdon asserts distinctly that from Reading Stephen passed -to Oxford, and that he there renewed the pledges he had made on his -coronation-day.[47] That, on leaving Reading, he moved to Oxford, though -the fact is mentioned by no other chronicler, would seem to be placed -beyond question by Henry's repeated assertion.[48] But the difficulty is -that Henry specifies what these pledges were, and that the version he -gives cannot be reconciled either with the king's "coronation charter" -or with what is known as his "second charter," granted at Oxford later -in the year. Dr. Stubbs, with the caution of a true scholar, though he -thinks it "probable," in his great work, that Stephen, upon this -occasion, made "some vague promises," yet adds, of those recorded by -Henry— - - "Whether these promises were embodied in a charter is uncertain: if - they were, the charter is lost; it is, however, more probable that the - story is a popular version of the document which was actually issued by - the king, at Oxford, later in the year 1136."[49] - -In his later work he seems inclined to place more credence in Henry's -story. - - "After the funeral, at Oxford or somewhere in the neighbourhood, he - arranged terms with them; terms by which he endeavoured, amplifying the - words of his charter, to catch the good will of each class of his - subjects.... The promises were, perhaps, not insincere at the time; - anyhow, they had the desired effect, and united the nation for the - moment."[50] - -It will be seen that the point is a most perplexing one, and can -scarcely at present be settled with certainty. But there is one point -beyond dispute, namely, that the so-called "second charter" was issued -later in the year, after the king's return from the north. Mr. Freeman, -therefore, has not merely failed to grasp the question at issue, but has -also strangely contradicted himself when he confidently assigns this -"second charter" to the king's first visit to Oxford, and refers us, in -doing so, to another page, in which it is as unhesitatingly assigned to -his other and later visit after his return from the north.[51] If I call -attention to this error, it is because I venture to think it one to -which this writer is too often liable, and against which, therefore, his -readers should be placed upon their guard.[52] - -It was at Oxford, in January,[53] that Stephen heard of David's advance -into England. With creditable rapidity he assembled an army and hastened -to the north to meet him. He encountered him at Durham on the 5th of -February (the day after Ash Wednesday), and effected a peaceable -agreement. He then retraced his steps, after a stay of about a -fortnight,[54] and returned to keep his Easter (March 22) at -Westminster. I wish to invite special attention to this Easter court, -because it was in many ways of great importance, although historians -have almost ignored its existence. Combining the evidence of charters -with that which the chroniclers afford, we can learn not a little about -it, and see how notable an event it must have seemed at the time it was -held. We should observe, in the first place, that this was no mere -"curia de more": it was emphatically a great or national council. The -author of the _Gesta_ describes it thus:— - - "Omnibus igitur summatibus regni, fide et jurejurando cum rege - constrictis, edicto per Angliam promulgato, summos ecclesiarum ductores - cum primis populi ad concilium Londonias conscivit. Illis quoque quasi - in unam sentinam illuc confluentibus ecclesiarumque columnis sedendi - ordine dispositis, vulgo etiam confuse et permixtim,[55] ut solet, - ubique se ingerente, plura regno et ecclesiæ profutura fuerunt et - utiliter ostensa et salubriter pertractata."[56] - -We have clearly in this great council, held on the first court day -(Easter) after the king's coronation, a revival of the splendours of -former reigns, so sorely dimmed beneath the rule of his bereaved and -parsimonious uncle.[57] - -Henry of Huntingdon has a glowing description of this Easter court,[58] -which reminds one of William of Malmesbury's pictures of the Conqueror -in his glory.[59] When, therefore, Dr. Stubbs tells us that this custom -of the Conqueror "was restored by Henry II." (_Const. Hist._, i. 370), -he ignores this brilliant revival at the outset of Stephen's reign. -Stephen, coming into possession of his predecessor's hoarded treasure, -was as eager to plunge into costly pomp as was Henry VIII. on the death -of his mean and grasping sire. There were also more solid reasons for -this dazzling assembly. It was desirable for the king to show himself to -his new subjects in his capital, surrounded not only by the evidence of -wealth, but by that of his national acceptance. The presence at his -court of the magnates from all parts of the realm was a fact which would -speak for itself, and to secure which he had clearly resolved that no -pains should be spared.[60] - -If the small group who attended his coronation had indeed been "but a -poor substitute for the great councils which had attended the summons of -William and Henry," he was resolved that this should be forgotten in the -splendour of his Easter court. - -This view is strikingly confirmed by the lists of witnesses to two -charters which must have passed on this occasion. The one is a grant to -the see of Winchester of the manor of Sutton, in Hampshire, in exchange -for Morden, in Surrey. The other is a grant of the bishopric of Bath to -Robert of Lewes. The former is dated "Apud Westmonasterium in presentia -et audientia subscriptorum anno incarnationis dominicæ, 1136," etc.; the -latter, "Apud Westmonasterium in generalis concilii celebratione et -Paschalis festi solemnitate." At first sight, I confess, both charters -have a rather spurious appearance. Their stilted style awakes suspicion, -which is not lessened by the dating clauses or the extraordinary number -of witnesses. Coming, however, from independent sources, and dealing -with two unconnected subjects, they mutually confirm one another. We -have, moreover, still extant the charter by which Henry II. confirmed -the former of the two, and as this is among the duchy of Lancaster -records, we have every reason to believe that the original charter -itself was, as both its transcribers assert, among them also. Again, as -to the lists of witnesses. Abnormally long though these may seem, we -must remember that in the charters of Henry I., especially towards the -close of his reign, there was a tendency to increase the number of -witnesses. Moreover, in the Oxford charter, by which these were -immediately followed, we have a long list of witnesses (thirty-seven), -and, which is noteworthy, it is similarly arranged on a principle of -classification, the court officers being grouped together. I have, -therefore, given in an appendix, for the purpose of comparison, all -three lists.[61] If we analyze those appended to the two London -charters, we find their authenticity confirmed by the fact that, while -the Earl of Gloucester, who was abroad at the time, is conspicuously -absent from the list, Henry, son of the King of Scots, duly appears -among the attesting earls, and we are specially told by John of Hexham -that he was present at this Easter court.[62] Miles of Gloucester and -Brian fitz Count also figure together among the witnesses—a fact, from -their position, of some importance.[63] It is, too, of interest for our -purpose, to note that among them is Geoffrey de Mandeville. The -extraordinary number of witnesses to these charters (no less than -fifty-five in one case, excluding the king and queen, and thirty-six in -the other) is not only of great value as giving us the _personnel_ of -this brilliant court, but is also, when compared with the Oxford -charter, suggestive perhaps of a desire, by the king, to place on record -the names of those whom he had induced to attend his courts and so to -recognize his claims. Mr. Pym Yeatman more than once, in his strange -_History of the House of Arundel_, quotes the charter to Winchester as -from a transcript "among the valuable collection of MSS. belonging to -the Earl of Egmont" (p. 49). It may, therefore, be of benefit to -students to remind them that it is printed in Hearne's _Liber Niger_ -(ii. 808, 809). Mr. Yeatman, moreover, observes of this charter— - - "It contains the names of no less than thirty-four noblemen of the - highest rank (excluding only the Earl of Gloucester), but not a single - ecclesiastical witness attests the grant, which is perhaps not - remarkable, since it was a dangerous precedent to deal in such a matter - with Church property, perhaps a new precedent created by Stephen" (p. - 286). - -To other students it will appear "perhaps not remarkable" that the -charter is witnessed by the unusual number of no less than three -archbishops and thirteen bishops.[64] - -Now, although this was a national council, the state and position of the -Church was the chief subject of discussion. The author of the _Gesta_, -who appears to have been well informed on the subject, shows us the -prelates appealing to Stephen to relieve the Church from the intolerable -oppression which she had suffered, under the form of law, at the hands -of Henry I. Stephen, bland, for the time, to all, and more especially to -the powerful Church, listened graciously to their prayers, and promised -all they asked.[65] In the grimly jocose language of the day, the keys -of the Church, which had been held by Simon (Magus), were henceforth to -be restored to Peter. To this I trace a distinct allusion in the curious -phrase which meets us in the Bath charter. Stephen grants the bishopric -of Bath "_canonica prius electione præcedente_." This recognition of the -Church's right, with the public record of the fact, confirms the account -of his attitude on this occasion to the Church. The whole charter -contrasts strangely with that by which, fifteen years before, his -predecessor had granted the bishopric of Hereford, and its reference to -the counsel and consent of the magnates betrays the weakness of his -position. - -This council took place, as I have said, at London and during Easter. -But there is some confusion on the subject. Mr. Howlett, in his -excellent edition of the _Gesta_, assigns it, in footnotes (pp. 17, 18), -to "early in April." But his argument that, as that must have been (as -it was) the date of the (Oxford) charter, it was consequently that of -the (London) council, confuses two distinct events. In this he does but -follow the _Gesta_, which similarly runs into one the two consecutive -events. Richard of Hexham also, followed by John of Hexham,[66] combines -in one the council at London with the charter issued at Oxford, besides -placing them both, wrongly, far too late in the year. - -Here are the passages in point taken from both writers:— - - RICHARD OF HEXHAM. - - Eodem quoque anno Innocentius Romanæ sedis Apostolicus, Stephano regi - Angliæ litteras suas transmisit, quibus eum Apostolica auctoritate in - regno Angliæ confirmavit.... Igitur Stephanus his et aliis modis in - regno Angliæ confirmatus, episcopos et proceres sui regni regali edicto - in unum convenire præcepit; cum quibus hoc generale concilium - celebravit. - - JOHN OF HEXHAM. - - Eodem anno Innocentius papa litteris ab Apostolica sede directis eundem - regem Stephanum in negotiis regni confirmavit. Harum tenore litterarum - rex instructus, generali convocato concilio bonas et antiquas leges, et - justos consuetudines præcepit conservari, injustitias vero cassari. - -The point to keep clearly in mind is that the Earl of Gloucester was not -present at the Easter court in London, and that, landing subsequently, -he was present when the charter of liberties was granted at Oxford. So -short an interval of time elapsed that there cannot have been two -councils. There was, I believe, one council which adjourned from London -to Oxford, and which did so on purpose to meet the virtual head of the -opposition, the powerful Earl of Gloucester. It must have been the -waiting for his arrival at court which postponed the issue of the -charter, and it is not wonderful that, under these circumstances, the -chroniclers should have made of the whole but one transaction. - -The earl, on his arrival, did homage, with the very important and -significant reservation that his loyalty would be strictly conditional -on Stephen's behaviour to himself.[67] - -His example in this respect was followed by the bishops, for we read in -the chronicler, immediately afterwards: - - "Eodem anno, non multo post adventum comitis, juraverunt episcopi - fidelitatem regi quamdiu ille libertatem ecclesiæ et vigorem disciplinæ - conservaret."[68] - -By this writer the incident in question is recorded in connection with -the Oxford charter. In this he must be correct, if it was subsequent to -the earl's homage, for this latter itself, we see, must have been -subsequent to Easter. - -Probably the council at London was the preliminary to that treaty -(_convencio_) between the king and the bishops, at which William of -Malmesbury so plainly hints, and of which the Oxford charter is -virtually the exponent record. For this, I take it, is the point to be -steadily kept in view, namely, that the terms of such a charter as this -are the resultant of two opposing forces—the one, the desire to extort -from the king the utmost possible concession; the other, his desire to -extort homage at the lowest price he could. Taken in connection with the -presence at Oxford of his arch-opponent, the Earl of Gloucester, this -view, I would venture to urge, may lead us to the conclusion that this -extended version of his meagre "coronation charter" represents his final -and definite acceptance, by the magnates of England, as their king. - -It may be noticed, incidentally, as illustrative of the chronicle-value -of charters, that not a single chronicler records this eventful assembly -at Oxford. Our knowledge of it is derived wholly and solely from the -testing-clause of the charter itself—"Apud Oxeneford, anno ab -incarnatione Domini MCXXXVI." Attention should also, perhaps, be drawn -to this repeated visit to Oxford, and to the selection of that spot for -this assembly. For this its central position may, doubtless, partly -account, especially if the Earl of Gloucester was loth to come further -east. But it also, we must remember, represented for Stephen, as it -were, a post of observation, commanding, in Bristol and Gloucester, the -two strongholds of the opposition. So, conversely, it represented to the -Empress an advanced post resting on their base. - -Lastly, I think it perfectly possible to fix pretty closely the date of -this assembly and charter. Easter falling on the 22nd of March, neither -the king nor the Earl of Gloucester would have reached Oxford till the -end of March or, perhaps, the beginning of April. But as early as -Rogation-tide (April 26-29) it was rumoured that the king was dead, and -Hugh Bigod, who, as a royal _dapifer_, had been among the witnesses to -this Oxford charter, burst into revolt at once.[69] Then followed the -suppression of the rebellion, and the king's breach of the charter.[70] -It would seem, therefore, to be beyond question that this assembly took -place early in April (1136). - -I have gone thus closely into these details in order to bring out as -clearly as possible the process, culminating in the Oxford charter, by -which the succession of Stephen was gradually and, above all, -conditionally secured. - -Stephen, as a king, was an admitted failure. I cannot, however, but view -with suspicion the causes assigned to his failure by often unfriendly -chroniclers. That their criticisms had some foundation it would not be -possible to deny. But in the first place, had he enjoyed better fortune, -we should have heard less of his incapacity, and in the second, these -writers, not enjoying the same standpoint as ourselves, were, I think, -somewhat inclined to mistake effects for causes. Stephen, for instance, -has been severely blamed, mainly on the authority of Henry of -Huntingdon,[71] for not punishing more severely the rebels who held -Exeter against him in 1136. Surely, in doing so, his critics must forget -the parallel cases of both his predecessors. William Rufus at the siege -of Rochester (1088), Henry I. at the siege of Bridgnorth (1102), should -both be remembered when dealing with Stephen at the siege of Exeter. In -both these cases, the people had clamoured for condign punishment on the -traitors; in both, the king, who had conquered by their help, was held -back by the jealousy of his barons, from punishing their fellows as they -deserved. We learn from the author of the _Gesta_ that the same was the -case at Exeter. The king's barons again intervened to save those who had -rebelled from ruin, and at the same time to prevent the king from -securing too signal a triumph. - -This brings us to the true source of his weakness throughout his reign. -That weakness was due to two causes, each supplementing the other. These -were—(1) the essentially unsatisfactory character of his position, as -resting, virtually, on a compact that he should be king so long only as -he gave satisfaction to those who had placed him on the throne; (2) the -existence of a rival claim, hanging over him from the first, like the -sword of Damocles, and affording a lever by which the malcontents could -compel him to adhere to the original understanding, or even to submit to -further demands. - -Let us glance at them both in succession. - -Stephen himself describes his title in the opening clause of his Oxford -charter:— - - "Ego Stephanus Dei gratia assensu cleri et populi in regem Anglorum - electus, et a Willelmo Cantuariensi archiepiscopo et sanctæ Romanæ - ecclesiæ legato consecratus, et ab Innocentio sanctæ Romanæ sedis - pontifice confirmatus."[72] - -On this clause Dr. Stubbs observes:— - - "His rehearsal of his title is curious and important; it is worth while - to compare it with that of Henry I., but it need not necessarily be - interpreted as showing a consciousness of weakness."[73] - -Referring to the charter of Henry I., we find the clause phrased thus:— - - "HENRICUS FILIUS WILLELMI REGIS post obitum fratris sui Willelmi, Dei - gratia rex Anglorum."[74] - -Surely the point to strike us here is that the clause in Stephen's -charter contains just that which is omitted in Henry's, and omits just -that which is contained in Henry's. Henry puts forward his relationship -to his father and his brother as the sole explanation of his position as -king. Stephen omits all mention of his relationship. Conversely, the -election, etc., set forth by Stephen, finds no place in the charter of -Henry. What can be more significant than this contrast? Again, the -formula in Stephen's charter should be compared not only with that of -Henry, but with that of his daughter the Empress. As the father had -styled himself "Henricus filius Willelmi Regis," so his daughter -invariably styled herself "Matildis ... Henrici regis [_or_ regis -Henrici] filia;" and so her son, in his time, is styled (1142), as we -shall find in a charter quoted in this work, "Henricus filius filiæ -regis Henrici." To the importance of this fact I shall recur below. -Meanwhile, the point to bear in mind is, that Stephen's style contains -no allusion to his parentage, though, strangely enough, in a charter -which must have passed in the first year of his reign, he does adopt the -curious style of "Ego Stephanus Willelmi Anglorum primi Regis nepos," -etc.,[75] in which he hints, contrary to his practice, at a -quasi-hereditary right. - -Returning, however, to his Oxford charter, in which he did not venture -to allude to such claim, we find him appealing (_a_) to his election, -which, as we have seen, was informal enough; (_b_) to his anointing by -the primate; (_c_) to his "confirmation" by the pope. It is impossible -to read such a formula as this in any other light than that of an -attempt to "make up a title" under difficulties. I do not know that it -has ever been suggested, though the hypothesis would seem highly -probable, that the stress laid by Stephen upon the ecclesiastical -sanction to his succession may have been largely due, as I have said (p. -10), to the obstacle presented by the oath that had been sworn to the -Empress. Of breaking that oath the Church, he held, had pronounced him -not guilty. - -Yet it is not so much on this significant style, as on the drift of the -charter itself, that I depend for support of my thesis that Stephen was -virtually king on sufferance, or, to anticipate a phrase of later times, -"Quamdiu se bene gesserit." We have seen how in the four typical cases, -(1) of the Londoners, (2) of Miles of Gloucester, (3) of Earl Robert, -(4) of the bishops, Stephen had only secured their allegiance by -submitting to that "original contract" which the political philosophers -of a later age evolved from their inner consciousness. It was because -his Oxford charter set the seal to this "contract" that Stephen, even -then, chafed beneath its yoke, as evidenced by the striking saving -clause— - - "Hæc omnia concedo et confirmo salva regia et justa dignitate meâ."[76] - -And, as we know, at the first opportunity, he hastened to -break its bonds.[77] - -The position of his opponents throughout his reign would seem to have -rested on two assumptions. The first, that a breach, on his part, of the -"contract" justified _ipso facto_ revolt on theirs;[78] the second, that -their allegiance to the king was a purely feudal relation, and, as such, -could be thrown off at any moment by performing the famous -_diffidatio_.[79] - -This essential feature of continental feudalism had been rigidly -excluded by the Conqueror. He had taken advantage, as is well known, of -his position as an English king, to extort an allegiance from his Norman -followers more absolute than he could have claimed as their feudal lord. -It was to Stephen's peculiar position that was due the introduction for -a time of this pernicious principle into England. We have seen it hinted -at in that charter of Stephen in which he treats with Miles of -Gloucester not merely as his king (_rex_), but also as his feudal lord -(_dominus_). We shall find it acted on three years later (1139), when -this same Miles, with his own _dominus_, the Earl of Gloucester, jointly -"defy" Stephen before declaring for the Empress.[80] - -Passing now to the other point, the existence of a rival claim, we -approach a subject of great interest, the theory of the succession to -the English Crown at what may be termed the crisis of transition from -the principle of election (within the royal house) to that of hereditary -right according to feudal rules. - -For the right view on this subject, we turn, as ever, to Dr. Stubbs, -who, with his usual sound judgment, writes thus of the Norman period:— - - "The crown then continued to be elective.... But whilst the elective - principle was maintained in its fulness where it was necessary or - possible to maintain it, it is quite certain that the right of - inheritance, and inheritance as primogeniture, was recognized as - co-ordinate.... The measures taken by Henry I. for securing the crown - to his own children, whilst they prove the acceptance of the hereditary - principle, prove also the importance of strengthening it by the - recognition of the elective theory.[81] - -Mr. Freeman, though writing with a strong bias in favour of the elective -theory, is fully justified in his main argument, namely, that Stephen -"was no usurper in the sense in which the word is vulgarly used."[82] He -urges, apparently with perfect truth, that Stephen's offence, in the -eyes of his contemporaries, lay in his breaking his solemn oath, and not -in his supplanting a rightful heir. And he aptly suggests that the -wretchedness of his reign may have hastened the growth of that new -belief in the divine right of the heir to the throne, which first -appears under Henry II., and in the pages of William of Newburgh.[83] - -So far as Stephen is concerned the case is clear enough. But we have -also to consider the Empress. On what did she base her claim? I think -that, as implied in Dr. Stubbs' words, she based it on a double, not a -single, ground. She claimed the kingdom as King Henry's daughter ("regis -Henrici filia"), but she claimed it further because the succession had -been assured to her by oath ("sibi juratum") as such.[84] It is -important to observe that the oath in question can in no way be regarded -in the light of an election. To understand it aright, we must go back to -the precisely similar oath which had been previously sworn to her -brother. As early as 1116, the king, in evident anxiety to secure the -succession to his heir, had called upon a gathering of the magnates "of -all England," on the historic spot of Salisbury, to swear allegiance to -his son (March 19).[85] It was with reference to this event that Eadmer -described him at his death (November, 1120) as "Willelmum jam olim regni -hæredem designatum" (p. 290). Before leaving Normandy in November, 1120, -the king similarly secured the succession of the duchy to his son by -compelling its barons to swear that they would be faithful to the -youth.[86] On the destruction of his plans by his son's death, he -hastened to marry again in the hope of securing, once more, a male heir. -Despairing of this after some years, he took advantage of the Emperor's -death to insist on his daughter's return, and brought her with him to -England in the autumn of 1126. He was not long in taking steps to secure -her recognition as his heir (subject however, as the Continuator and -Symeon are both careful to point out, to no son being born to him), by -the same oath being sworn to her as, in 1116, had been sworn to his son. -It was taken, not (as is always stated) in 1126, but on the 1st of -January, 1127.[87] Of what took place upon that occasion, there is, -happily, full evidence.[88] - -We have independent reports of the transaction from William of -Malmesbury, Symeon of Durham, the Continuator of Florence, and Gervase -of Canterbury.[89] From this last we learn (the fact is, therefore, -doubtful) that the oath secured the succession, not only to the Empress, -but to her heirs.[90] The Continuator's version is chiefly important as -bringing out the action of the king in assigning the succession to his -daughter, the oath being merely an undertaking to secure the arrangement -he had made.[91] Symeon introduces the striking expression that the -Empress was to succeed "hæreditario jure,"[92] but William of -Malmesbury, in the speech which he places in the king's mouth, far -outstrips this in his assertion of hereditary right:— - - "præfatus quanto incommodo patriæ fortuna Willelmum filium suum sibi - surripuisset, _cui jure regnum competeret_: nunc superesse filiam, _cui - soli legitima debeatur successio, ab avo, avunculo, et patre regibus_; - a materno genere multis retro seculis."[93] - -Bearing in mind the time at which William wrote these words, it will be -seen that the Empress and her partisans must have largely, to say the -least, based their claim on her right to the throne as her father's -heir, and that she and they appealed to the oath as the admission and -recognition of that right, rather than as partaking in any way whatever -of the character of a free election.[94] Thus her claim was neatly -traversed by Stephen's advocates, at Rome, in 1136, when they urged that -she was not her father's heir, and that, consequently, the oath which -had been sworn to her as such ("sicut hæredi") was void. - -It is, as I have said, in the above light that I view her unvarying use -of the style "regis Henrici filia," and that this was the true character -of her claim will be seen from the terms of a charter I shall quote, -which has hitherto, it would seem, remained unknown, and in which she -recites that, on arriving in England, she was promptly welcomed by Miles -of Gloucester "sicut illam quam justam hæredem regni Angliæ recognovit." - -The sex of the Empress was the drawback to her claim. Had her brother -lived, there can be little question that he would, as a matter of -course, have succeeded his father at his death. Or again, had Henry II. -been old enough to succeed his grandfather, he would, we may be sure, -have done so. But as to the Empress, even admitting the justice of her -claim, it was by no means clear in whom it was vested. It might either -be vested (_a_) in herself, in accordance with our modern notions; or -(_b_) in her husband, in accordance with feudal ones;[95] or (_c_) in -her son, as, in the event, it was. It may be said that this point was -still undecided as late as 1142, when Geoffrey was invited to come to -England, and decided to send his son instead, to represent the -hereditary claim. The force of circumstances, however, as we shall find, -had compelled the Empress, in the hour of her triumph (1141), to take -her own course, and to claim the throne for herself as queen, though -even this would not decide the point, as, had she succeeded, her -husband, we may be sure, would have claimed the title of king. - -Broadly speaking, to sum up the evidence here collected, it tends to the -belief that the obsolescence of the right of election to the English -crown presents considerable analogy to that of canonical election in the -case of English bishoprics. In both cases a free election degenerated -into a mere assent to a choice already made. We see the process of -change already in full operation when Henry I. endeavours to extort -beforehand from the magnates their assent to his daughter's succession, -and when they subsequently complain of this attempt to dictate to them -on the subject. We catch sight of it again when his daughter bases her -claim to the crown, not on any free election, but on her rights as her -father's heir, confirmed by the above assent. We see it, lastly, when -Stephen, though owing his crown to election, claims to rule by Divine -right ("Dei gratia"[96]), and attempts to reduce that election to -nothing more than a national "assent" to his succession. Obviously, the -whole question turned on whether the election was to be held first, or -was to be a mere ratification of a choice already made. Thus, at the -very time when Stephen was formulating his title, he was admitting, in -the case of the bishopric of Bath, that the canonical election had -_preceded_ his own nomination of the bishop.[97] Yet it is easy to see -how, as the Crown grew in strength, the elections, in both cases alike, -would become, more and more, virtually matters of form, while a weak -sovereign or a disputed succession would afford an opportunity for this -historical survival, in the case at least of the throne, to recover for -a moment its pristine strength. - -Before quitting the point, I would venture briefly to resume my grounds -for urging that, in comparing Stephen with his successor, the difference -between their circumstances has been insufficiently allowed for. At -Stephen's accession, thirty years of legal and financial oppression had -rendered unpopular the power of the Crown, and had led to an impatience -of official restraint which opened the path to a feudal reaction: at the -accession of Henry, on the contrary, the evils of an enfeebled -administration and of feudalism run mad had made all men eager for the -advent of a strong king, and had prepared them to welcome the -introduction of his centralizing administrative reforms. He anticipated -the position of the house of Tudor at the close of the Wars of the -Roses, and combined with it the advantages which Charles II. derived -from the Puritan tyranny. Again, Stephen was hampered from the first by -his weak position as a king on sufferance, whereas Henry came to his -work unhampered by compact or concession. Lastly, Stephen was confronted -throughout by a rival claimant, who formed a splendid rallying-point for -all the discontent in his realm: but Henry reigned for as long as -Stephen without a rival to trouble him; and when he found at length a -rival in his own son, a claim far weaker than that which had threatened -his predecessor seemed likely for a time to break his power as -effectually as the followers of the Empress had broken that of Stephen. -He may only, indeed, have owed his escape to that efficient -administration which years of strength and safety had given him the time -to construct. - -It in no way follows from these considerations that Henry was not -superior to Stephen; but it does, surely, suggest itself that Stephen's -disadvantages were great, and that had he enjoyed better fortune, we -might have heard less of his defects. It will be at least established by -the evidence adduced in this work that some of the charges which are -brought against him can no longer be maintained. - -[3] _Early Plantagenets_, p. 13; _Const Hist._ (1874), i. 319. - -[4] _Gesta Stephani_, p. 3. - -[5] "A Dourensibus repulsus, et a Cantuarinis exclusus" (_Gervase_, i. -94). As illustrating the use of such adjectives for the garrison, rather -than the townsfolk, compare Florence of Worcester's "Hrofenses -Cantuariensibus ... cædes inferunt" (ii. 23), where the "Hrofenses" are -Odo's garrison. So too "Bristoenses" in the _Gesta_ (ed. Hewlett, pp. -38, 40, 41), though rendered by the editor "the people of Bristol," are -clearly the troops of the Earl of Gloucester. - -[6] _Early Plantagenets_, p. 14. Compare _Const. Hist._, i. 319: "The -men of Kent, remembering the mischief that had constantly come to them -from Boulogne, refused to receive him." Miss Norgate adopts the same -explanation (_England under the Angevin Kings_, i. 277). - -[7] There is a curious incidental allusion to the earl's Kentish -possessions in William of Malmesbury, who states (p. 759) that he was -allowed, while a prisoner at Rochester (October, 1141), to receive his -rents from his Kentish tenants ("ab hominibus suis de Cantia"). Stephen, -then, it would seem, did not forfeit them. - -[8] In the rebellion of 1138 Walchelin Maminot, the earl's castellan, -held Dover against Stephen, and was besieged by the Queen and by the men -of Boulogne. Curiously enough, Mr. Freeman made a similar slip, now -corrected, to that here discussed, when he wrote that "whatever might be -the feelings of the rest of the shire, the men of Dover had no mind to -see Count Eustace again within their walls" (_Norm. Conq._, iv. 116), -though they were, on the contrary, quite as anxious as the rest of the -shire to do so. - -[9] "Id quoque sui esse juris, suique specialiter privilegii ut si rex -ipsorum quoquo modo obiret, alius suo provisu in regno substituendus e -vestigio succederet" (_Gesta_, p. 3). This audacious claim of the -citizens to such right as vested in themselves is much stronger than Mr. -Freeman's paraphrase when he speaks of "the citizens of London and -Winchester [why Winchester?], who freely exercised their ancient right -of _sharing in_ the election of the king who should reign over them" -(_Norm. Conq._, v. 251; cf. p. 856). - -[10] "Firmatâ prius utrimque pactione, peractoque, ut vulgus asserebat, -mutuo juramento, ut eum cives quoad viveret opibus sustentarent, viribus -tutarentur; ipse autem, ad regnum pacificandum, ad omnium eorundem -suffragium, toto sese conatu accingeret" (_Gesta_, p. 4). See Appendix -A. - -[11] "Spe scilicet captus amplissima quod Stephanus avi sui Willelmi in -regni moderamine mores servaret, precipueque in ecclesiastici vigoris -disciplinâ. Quapropter districto sacramento quod a Stephano Willelmus -Cantuarensis archiepiscopus exegit de libertate reddenda ecclesiæ et -conservanda, episcopus Wintoniensis se mediatorem et vadem apposuit. -Cujus sacramenti tenorem, postea scripto inditum, loco suo non -prætermittam" (p. 704). See Addenda. - -[12] "Enimvero, quamvis ego vadem me apposuerim inter eum et Deum quod -sanctam ecclesiam honoraret et exaltaret, et bonas leges manuteneret, -malas vero abrogaret; piget meminisse, pudet narrare, qualem se in regno -exhibuerit," etc. (_ibid._, p. 746). - -[13] The phrase "districto Sacramento" is very difficult to construe. I -have here taken it to imply a release of Stephen from his oath, but the -meaning of the passage, which is obscure as it stands, may be merely -that Henry became surety for Stephen's performance of the oath as in an -agreement or treaty between two contracting parties (_vide infra -passim_). - -[14] _Ante_, p. 3. - -[15] _Gesta_, 5, 6; _Will. Malms._, 703. Note that William Rufus, -Henry I., and Stephen all of them visited and secured Winchester even -before their coronation. - -[16] _Const. Hist._, i. 319. - -[17] "A cunctis fere in regem electus est, et sic a Willelmo Cantuarensi -archiepiscopo coronatus." - -[18] "The form of election was hastily gone through by the barons on the -spot" (_Const. Hist._, i. 303). - -[19] _Select Charters_, p. 108. - -[20] _Early Plantagenets_, p. 14. - -[21] "Consentientibus in ejus promotionem Willelmo Cantuarensi -archiepiscopo et clericorum et laicorum universitate" (_Sym. Dun._, ii. -286, 287). - -[22] "Sic profecto, sic congruit, ut ad eum in regno confirmandum omnes -pariter convolent, parique consensu quid statuendum, quidve respuendum -sit, ab omnibus provideatur" (pp. 6, 7). Eventually he represents the -primate as acting "Cum episcopis frequentique, qui intererat, clericatu" -(p. 8). - -[23] "Tribus episcopis præsentibus, archiepiscopo, Wintoniensi, -Salesbiriensi, nullis abbatibus, paucissimis optimatibus" (p. 704). See -Addenda. - -[24] "Supremo eum agitante mortis articulo, cum et plurimi astarent et -veram suorum erratuum confessionem audirent, de jurejurando violenter -baronibus suis injuncto apertissime pænituit." - -[25] "Quidam ex potentissimis Angliæ, jurans et dicens se præsentem -affuisse ubi rex Henricus idem juramentum in bona fide sponte -relaxasset." - -[26] "Hugo Bigod senescallus regis coram archiepiscopo Cantuariæ -sacramento probavit quod, dum Rex Henricus ageret in extremis, ortis -quibus inimicitiis inter ipsum et imperatricem, ipsam exhæredavit, et -Stephanum Boloniæ comitem hæredem instituit." - -[27] "Et hæc juramento comitis (_sic_) Hugonis et duorum militum probata -esse dicebant in facie ecclesie Anglicane" (ed. Pertz, p. 543). - -[28] "Cum regis (_sic_) fautores obnixe persuaderent quatinus eum ad -regnandum inungeret, quodque imperfectum videbatur, administrationis suæ -officio suppleret" (p. 6). - -[29] _Const. Hist._, i. 146. - -[30] See his Oxford Charter. - -[31] See the legate's speech at Winchester: "Ventilata est hesterno die -causa secreto coram majori parte cleri Angliæ, _ad cujus jus potissimum -spectat principem eligere, simulque ordinare_" (_Will. Malms._, p. 746). - -[32] Henry had sworn "in ipso suæ consecrationis die" (Eadmer), Stephen -"in ipsa consecrationis tuæ die" (Innocent's letter). Henry of -Huntingdon refers to the "pacta" which Stephen "Deo et populo et sanctæ -ecclesiæ concesserat in die coronationis suæ." William of Malmesbury -speaks of the oath as "postea [_i.e._ at Oxford] scripto inditum." See -Addenda. - -[33] See Appendix B: "The Appeal to Rome in 1136." - -[34] See Appendix B. - -[35] _Hen. Hunt._, 258; _Cont. Flor. Wig._, 95; _Will. Malms._, 705. - -[36] _Const. Hist._, i. 321. - -[37] Lansdowne MS. 229, fol. 109, and Lansdowne MS. 259, fol. 66, both -being excerpts from the lost volume of the Great Coucher of the Duchy. - -[38] Speaking of the late king's trusted friends, who hung back from -coming to court, he writes: "Illi autem, intentâ sibi a rege -comminatione, cum salvo eundi et redeundi conductu curiam petiere; -omnibusque ad votum impetratis, peracto cum jurejurando liberali -hominio, illius sese servitio ex toto mancipârunt. Affuit inter reliquos -Paganus filius Johannis, sed et Milo, de quo superius fecimus mentionem, -ille Herefordensis et Salopesbiriæ, iste Glocestrensis provinciæ -dominatum gerens: qui in tempore regis Henrici potentiæ suæ culmen -extenderant ut a Sabrinâ flumine usque ad mare per omnes fines Angliæ et -Waloniæ omnes placitis involverent, angariis onerarent" (pp. 15, 16). - -[39] _Cont. Flor. Wig._ - -[40] "S. rex Angliæ Archiepĩs etc. Sciatis me reddidisse et concessisse -Miloni Gloec̃ et heredibus suis post eum in feodo et hereditate totum -honorem patris sui et custodiam turris et castelli Gloecestrie ad -tenendum tali forma (_sic_) qualem reddebat tempore regis Henrici sicut -patrimonium suum. Et totum honorem suum de Brechenion et omnia -Ministeria sua et terras suas quas tenuit tempore regis Henrici sicut -eas melius et honorificentius tenuit die qua rex Henricus fuit vivus et -mortuus, et ego ei in convencionem habeo sicut Rex et dominus Baroni -meo. Quare precipio quod bene et in honore et in pace et libere teneat -cum omnibus libertatibus suis. Testes, W. filius Ricardi, Robertus de -Ferrariis, Robertus filius Ricardi, Hugo Bigot, Ingelramus de Sai, -Balduinus filius Gisleberti. Apud Radinges" (Lansdowne MS. 229, fols. -123, 124). - -[41] _History of the Exchequer_, p. 135. - -[42] I am inclined to believe that in Robert fitz Richard we have that -Robert fitz Richard (de Clare) who died in 1137 (Robert de Torigny), -being then described as paternal uncle to Richard fitz Gilbert (de -Clare), usually but erroneously described as first Earl of Hertford. If -so, he was also uncle to Baldwin (fitz Gilbert) de Clare of this -charter, and brother to W(alter) fitz Richard (de Clare), another -witness. We shall come across another of Stephen's charters to which the -house of Clare contributes several witnesses. There is evidence to -suggest that Robert fitz Richard (de Clare) was lord, in some way, of -Maldon in Essex, and was succeeded there by (his nephew) Walter fitz -Gilbert (de Clare), who went on crusade (probably in 1147). - -[43] There is preserved among the royal charters belonging to the Duchy -of Lancaster, the fragment of one grant of which the contents correspond -exactly, it would seem, with those of the above charter, though the -witnesses' names are different. This raises a problem which cannot at -present be solved. - -[44] In the fellow-charter the phrase runs: "sicut Rex et dominus Baroni -meo." - -[45] "The Norman idea of royalty was very comprehensive; it practically -combined all the powers of the national sovereignty, as they had been -exercised by Edgar and Canute, with those of the feudal theory of -monarchy, which was exemplified at the time in France and the Empire.... -The king is accordingly both the chosen head of the nation and the lord -paramount of the whole of the land" (_Const. Hist._, i. 338). - -[46] Compare the words of address in several of the _Cartæ Baronum_ -(1166): "servitium ut domino;" "vobis sicut domino meo;" "sicut domino -carissimo;" "ut domino suo ligio." - -[47] "Inde perrexit rex Stephanus apud Oxeneford ubi recordatus et -confirmavit pacta quæ Deo et populo et sanctæ ecclesiæ concesserat in -die coronationis suæ" (p. 258). - -[48] "Cum venisset in fine Natalis ad Oxenefordiam" (_ibid._). - -[49] _Const. Hist._, i. 321. - -[50] _Early Plantagenets_, pp. 15, 16. - -[51] "The news of this [Scottish] inroad reached Stephen at Oxford, -where he had just put forth his second charter" (_Norm. Conq._, v. 258). - -"The second charter ... was put forth at Oxford before the first year of -his reign was out. Stephen had just come back victorious from driving -back a Scottish invasion (see p. 258)" (_ibid._, p. 246). - -[52] See Mr. Vincent's learned criticism on Mr. Freeman's _History of -Wells Cathedral_: "I detect throughout these pages an infirmity, a -confirmed habit of inaccuracy. The author of this book, I should infer -from numberless passages, cannot revise what he writes" (_Genealogist_, -(N.S.) ii. 179). - -[53] "In fine Natalis" (_Hen. Hunt._, 258). - -[54] _Sym. Dun._, ii. 287. - -[55] The curious words, "vulgo ... ingerente," may be commended to those -who uphold the doctrine of democratic survivals in these assemblies. -They would doubtless jump at them as proof that the "vulgus" took part -in the proceedings. The evidence, however, is, in any case, of -indisputable interest. - -[56] Ed. Howlett, p. 17. - -[57] "Quem morem convivandi primus successor obstinate tenuit, secundus -omisit" (_Will. Malms._). - -[58] "Rediens autem inde rex in Quadragesimâ tenuit curiam suam apud -Lundoniam in solemnitate Paschali, quâ nunquam fuerat splendidior in -Angliâ multitudine, magnitudine, auro, argento, gemmis, vestibus, -omnimodaque dapsilitate" (p. 259). - -[59] "[Consuetudo] erat ut ter in anno cuncti optimates ad curiam -convenirent de necessariis regni tractaturi, simulque visuri regis -insigne quomodo iret gemmato fastigiatus diademate" (_Vita S. -Wulstani_). "Convivia in præcipuis festivitatibus sumptuosa et magnifica -inibat; ... omnes eo cujuscunque professionis magnates regium edictum -accersiebat, ut exterarum gentium legati speciem multitudinis -apparatumque deliciarum mirarentur" (_Gesta regum_). - -[60] See in _Gesta_ (ed. Howlett, pp. 15, 16) his persistent efforts to -conciliate the ministers of Henry I., and especially the Marchers of the -west. - -[61] See Appendix C. - -[62] "In Paschali vero festivitate rex Stephanus eundem Henricum in -honorem in reverentia præferens, ad dexteram suam sedere fecit" (_Sym. -Dun._, ii. 287). - -[63] Dr. Stubbs appears, unless I am mistaken, to imply that they first -appear at court as witnesses to the (later) Oxford charter. He writes, -of that charter: "Her [the Empress's] most faithful adherents, Miles of -Hereford" [_recté_ Gloucester] "and Brian of Wallingford, were also -among the witnesses; probably the retreat of the King of Scots had made -her cause for the time hopeless" (_Const. Hist._, i. 321, _note_). - -[64] See Appendix C. - -[65] "His autem rex patienter auditis quæcumque postulârant gratuite eis -indulgens ecclesiæ libertatem fixam et inviolabilem esse, illius statuta -rata et inconcussa, ejus ministros cujuscunque professionis essent vel -ordinis, omni reverentiâ honorandos esse præcepit" (_Gesta_). - -[66] John's list of bishops attesting the (London) council is taken from -Richard's list of bishops attesting the (Oxford) charter. - -[67] "Eodem anno post Pascha Robertus comes Glocestræ, cujus prudentiam -rex Stephanus maxime verebatur, venit in Angliam.... Itaque homagium -regi fecit sub conditione quadam, scilicet quamdiu ille dignitatem suam -integre custodiret et sibi pacta servaret" (_Will. Malms._, 705, 707). - -[68] _Ibid._, 707. - -[69] _Hen. Hunt._, p. 259. - -[70] _Ibid._, p. 260. - -[71] "Vindictam non exercuit in proditores suos, pessimo consilio usus; -si enim eam tunc exercuisset, postea contra eum tot castella retenta non -fuissent" (_Hen. Hunt._, p. 259). - -[72] _Select Charters_, 114 (cf. _Will. Malms._). - -[73] _Ibid._ - -[74] _Ibid._, 96. - -[75] _Confirmation Roll_, 1 Hen. VIII., Part 5, No. 13 (quoted by Mr. J. -A. C. Vincent in _Genealogist_ (N. S.), ii. 271). This should be -compared with the argument of his friends when urging the primate to -crown him, that he had not only been elected to the throne (by the -Londoners), but also "ad hoc _justo germanæ propinquitatis jure_ idoneus -accessit" (_Gesta_, p. 8), and with the admission, shortly after, in the -pope's letter, that among his claims he "de præfati regis [Henrici] -prosapia prope posito gradu originem traxisse." - -[76] _Select Charters_, 115. But cf. _Will. Malms._ - -[77] As further illustrating the compromise of which this charter was -the resultant, note that Stephen retains and combines the formula "Dei -gratiâ" with the recital of election, and that he further represents the -election as merely a popular "_assent_" to his succession. - -[78] Compare the clause in the _Confirmatio Cartarum_ of 1265, -establishing the right of insurrection: "Liceat omnibus de regno nostro -contra nos insurgere." - -[79] See _inter alia_, Hallam's _Middle Ages_, i. 168, 169. - -[80] "Fama per Angliam volitabat, quod comes Gloecestræ Robertus, qui -erat in Normannia, in proximo partes sororis foret adjuturus, _rege -tantummodo ante diffidato_. Nec fides rerum famæ levitatem destituit: -celeriter enim post Pentecosten missis a Normanniâ suis regi _more -majorum amicitiam et fidem interdixit, homagio etiam abdicato_; rationem -præferens quam id juste faceret, quia et rex illicite ad regnum -aspiraverat, et omnem fidem sibi juratam neglexerat, ne dicam mentitus -fuerat" (_Will. Malms._, 712). So, too, the Continuator of Florence: -"Interim facta conjuratione adversus regem per prædictum Brycstowensem -comitem et conestabularium Milonem, _abnegata fidelitate quam illi -juraverant_, ... Milo constabularius, _regiæ majestati redditis fidei -sacramentis_, ad dominum suum, comitem Gloucestrensem, cum grandi manu -militum se contulit" (pp. 110, 117). Compare with these passages the -extraordinary complaint made against Stephen's conduct in attacking -Lincoln without sending a formal "defiance" to his opponents, and the -singular treaty, in this reign, between the Earls of Chester and of -Leicester, in which the latter was bound not to attack the former, as -his lord, without sending him the formal "diffidatio" a clear fortnight -beforehand. - -[81] _Const. Hist._, i. 338, 340. - -[82] _Norm. Conq._, v. 251. - -[83] "In a later stage, when the son of his rival was firm on the -throne, the doctrine of female succession took root under a king who by -the spindle-side sprang from both William and Cerdic, but who by the -spear-side had nothing to do with either. Then it was that men began to -find out that Stephen had been guilty not only of breaking his oath, but -also of defrauding the heir to the crown of her lawful right" (_ibid._, -p. 252). - -[84] "Henrici regis filia, ... vehementer exhilarata utpote regnum sibi -juratum ... jam adepta" (_Cont. Flor. Wig._, 130). But the above duplex -character of her claim is best brought out in her formal request that -the legate should receive her "tanquam regis Henrici filiam et cui omnis -Anglia et Normannia jurata esset." - -[85] "Conventio optimatum et baronum totius Angliæ apud Salesbyriam XIV. -kalend. Aprilis facta est, qui in præsentiâ regis Henrici homagium filio -suo Willelmo fecerunt, et fidelitatem ei juraverunt" (_Flor. Wig._, ii. -69). - -[86] "Normanniæ principes, jubente rege, filio suo Willelmo jam tunc -xviii. annorum, hominium faciunt, et fidelitatis securitatem sacramentis -affirmant" (_Sym. Dun._, ii. 258). - -[87] Oddly enough, the correct date must be sought from Symeon of -Durham, though, at first sight, he is the most inaccurate, as he places -the event under 1128 (a date accepted, in the margin, by his editor) -instead of 1126, the year given by the other chroniclers. But from him -we learn that the Christmas court (_i.e._ Christmas 1126) was adjourned -from Windsor to London, for the new year, "ubi Circumcisione Domini" -(January 1) the actual oath was taken. William of Malmesbury dates it, -loosely, at Christmas (1126), but the Continuator of Florence, more -accurately, "finitis diebus festivioribus" (p. 84), which confirms -Symeon's statement. - -[88] It is scarcely realized so clearly as it should be that the oath -taken on this occasion was that to which reference was always made. Dr. -Stubbs (_Const. Hist._, i. 341) recognizes "a similar oath in 1131" (on -the authority of William of Malmesbury), and another in 1133 (on the -authority of Roger of Hoveden). But the former is only incidentally -mentioned, and is neither alluded to elsewhere, nor referred to -subsequently by William himself; and the latter, which is similarly -devoid of any contemporary confirmation, is represented as securing the -succession, not to Matilda, but to her son. It is strange that so recent -and important an oath as this, if it was really taken, should have been -ignored in the controversy under Stephen, and the earlier oath, -described above, alone appealed to. - -[89] Henry of Huntingdon merely alludes to it, retrospectively, at -Stephen's accession, as the "sacramentum fidelitatis Anglici regni filiæ -regis Henrici" (p. 256). - -[90] "Fecit principes et potentes adjurare eidem filiæ suæ et heredibus -suis legitimis regnum Angliæ" (i. 93). This is, perhaps, somewhat -confirmed by the words which the author of the _Gesta_ places in the -primate's mouth (p. 7). - -[91] "In filiam suam, sororem scilicet Willelmi, ... regni jura -transferebat" (p. 85). The oath to secure her this succession was taken -"ad jussum regis" (p. 84). Compare with this expression that of Gervase -above, and that (_quantum valeat_) of Roger Hoveden, viz. "_constituit_ -eum regem;" also the "jubente rege" of Symeon in 1120. It was -accordingly urged, at Stephen's accession, that the oath had been -compulsory, and was therefore invalid. - -[92] "Juraverunt ut filiæ suæ imperatrici fide servata regnum Angliæ -_hæreditario jure_ post eum servarent" (p. 281). Compare William of -Newburgh, on Henry's accession: "Hæreditarium regnum suscepit." These -expressions are the more noteworthy because of the contrast they afford -to the Conqueror's dying words, "Neminem Anglici constituo heredem ... -non enim tantum decus hereditario jure possedi" (_Ord. Vit._). - -[93] _Will. Malms._, 691. - -[94] That the oath of January 1, 1127, preceding the marriage of the -Empress, was, as I have urged, the ruling one seems to be further -implied by the passage in William of Malmesbury: "Ego Rogerum -Salesbiriensem episcopum sæpe dicentem audivi, 'Solutum se sacramento -quod imperatrici fecerat: eo enim pacto se jurasse, ne rex præter -consilium suum et cæterorum procerum filiam cuiquam nuptam daret extra -regnum,'" etc., etc. (p. 693). - -[95] As for instance when Henry II. obtained Aquitaine with his wife. -There is, as it happens, a passage in Symeon of Durham, which may have -been somewhat overlooked, where it is distinctly stated that in the -autumn of the year (1127), Henry conceded, as a condition of the Angevin -match, that, in default of his having a son, Geoffrey of Anjou should -succeed him ("remque ad effectum perduxit eo tenore ut regi, de legitima -conjuge hæredem non habenti, mortuo _gener illius_ in regnum -succederet"). That Geoffrey's claim was recognized at the time is clear -from the striking passage quoted by Mr. Freeman from his panegyrist -("sceptro ... non injuste aspirante"), and even more so from the -explicit statement: "Volente igitur Gaufrido comite cum uxore suâ, quæ -hæres erat [here again is an allusion to her hereditary right], in -regnum succedere, primores terræ, juramenti sui male recordantes, -reg_em_ e_um_ suscipere noluerunt, dicentes 'Alienigena non regnabit -super nos'" (_Select Charters_, p. 110). - -[96] Compare the style of "Alphonso XIII., by the grace of God -constitutional King of Spain." - -[97] "Canonica prius electione præcedente." - - - - - CHAPTER II. - THE FIRST CHARTER OF THE KING. - - -Geoffrey de Mandeville was the grandson and heir of a follower of the -conqueror of the same name. From Mandeville, a village, according to Mr. -Stapleton, near Trevières in the Bessin,[98] the family took its name, -which, being Latinized as "De Magnavilla," is often found as "De -Magnaville." The elder Geoffrey appears in Domesday as a considerable -tenant-in-chief, his estates lying in no less than eleven different -counties.[99] On the authority of the _Monasticon_ he is said by Dugdale -to have been made constable of the Tower. Dugdale, however, has here -misquoted his own authority, for the chronicle printed by him states, -not that Geoffrey, but that his son and heir (William) received this -office.[100] Its statement is confirmed by Ordericus Vitalis, who -distinctly mentions that the Tower was in charge of William de -Mandeville when Randulf Flambard was there imprisoned in 1101.[101] This -may help to explain an otherwise puzzling fact, namely, that a Geoffrey -de Mandeville, who was presumably his father, appears as a witness to -charters of a date subsequent to this.[102] - -Geoffrey de Mandeville founded the Benedictine priory of Hurley,[103] -and we know the names of his two wives, Athelais and Leceline. By the -former he had a son and heir, William, mentioned above, who in turn was -the father of Geoffrey, the central figure of this work.[104] - -The above descent is not based upon the evidence of the _Monasticon_ -alone, but is incidentally recited in those royal charters on which my -story is so largely based. It is therefore beyond dispute. But though -there is no pedigree of the period clearer or better established, it has -formed the subject of an amazing blunder, so gross as to be scarcely -credible. Madox had shown, in his _History of the Exchequer_ (ii. 400), -that Geoffrey "Fitz Piers" (Earl of Essex from 1199 to 1213) was Sheriff -of Essex and Herts in 1192-94 (4 & 5 Ric. I.). Now Geoffrey, the son of -Geoffrey "Fitz Piers," assuming the surname of "De Mandeville," became -his successor in the earldom of Essex, which he held from 1213 to 1216. -The noble and learned authors of the _Lords' Reports on the Dignity of a -Peer_ began by confusing this Geoffrey with his namesake the earl of -1141, and bodily transferring to the latter the whole parentage of the -former. Thus they evolved the startling discovery that the father of our -Geoffrey, the earl of 1141, "was Geoffrey Fitz Peter [_i.e._ the earl of -1199-1213], and probably was son of Peter, the sheriff at the time of -the Survey."[105] But not content even with this, they transferred the -shrievalty of Geoffrey "Fitz Piers" from 1192-94 (_vide supra_)[106] to -a date earlier than the grant to Geoffrey de Mandeville (his supposed -son) in 1141. Now, during that shrievalty the Earls "of Clare" enjoyed -the _tertius denarius_ of the county of Hertford. Thus their lordships -were enabled to produce the further discovery that the Earls "of Clare" -enjoyed it before the date of this grant (1141), that is to say, "either -before or early in the reign of King Stephen."[107] The authority of -these Reports has been so widely recognized that we cannot wonder at -Courthope stating in his _Historic Peerage of England_ (p. 248) that -"Richard de Clare ... was Earl of Hertford, and possessed of the third -penny of that county, before or early in the reign of King Stephen." -Courthope has in turn misled Dr. Stubbs,[108] and Mr. Doyle has now -followed suit, stating that Richard de Clare was "created Earl of -Hertford (about) 1136."[109] It is therefore something to have traced -this error to its original source in the _Lords' Reports_. - -The first mention, it would seem, of the subject of this study is to be -found in the Pipe-Roll of 1130, where we read— - - "Gaufridus de Mandeville reddit compotum de Dccclxvj_li._ et xiii_s._ - et iiij_d._ pro terra patris sui. In thesauro cxxxiii_li._ et vi_s._ et - viii_d._ - - "Et debet Dcc et xxxiij_li._ et vj_s._ et viij_d._" (p. 55). - -As he had thus, at Michaelmas, 1130, paid only two-thirteenths of the -amount due from him for succession, that is the (arbitrary) "relief" to -the Crown, we may infer that his father was but lately dead. He does not -again meet us till he appears at Stephen's court early in 1136.[110] -From the date of that appearance we pass to his creation as an earl by -the first of those royal charters with which we are so largely -concerned.[111] - -The date of this charter is a point of no small interest, not merely -because we have in it the only surviving charter of creation of those -issued by Stephen, but also because there is reason to believe that it -is the oldest extant charter of creation known to English antiquaries. -That distinction has indeed been claimed for the second charter in my -series, namely, that which Geoffrey obtained from the Empress Maud. It -is of the latter that Camden wrote, "This is the most ancient -creation-charter that I ever saw."[112] Selden duly followed suit, and -Dugdale echoed Selden's words.[113] Courthope merely observes that it -"is presumed to be one of the very earliest charters of express creation -of the title of earl;"[114] and Mr. Birch pronounces it "one of the -earliest, if not the earliest, example of a deed creating a -peerage."[115] In despite, however, of these opinions I am prepared to -prove that the charter with which we are now dealing is entitled to the -first place, though that of the Empress comes next. - -We cannot begin an investigation of the subject better than by seeking -the opinion of Mr. Eyton, who was a specialist in the matter of charters -and their dates, and who had evidently investigated the point. His note -on this charter is as follows:— - - "Stephen's earlier deeds of 1136 exhibit Geoffrey de Magnaville as a - baron only. There are three such, two of which certainly, and the third - probably, passed at Westminster. He was custos of the Tower of London, - an office which probably necessitated a constant residence. There are - three patents of creation extant by which he became Earl of Essex. - Those which I suppose to precede this were by the Empress. The first of - them passed in the short period during which Maud was in London, _i.e._ - between June 24 and July 25, 1141. The second within a month after, at - Oxford. In the latter she alludes to grants of lands previously made by - Stephen to the said Geoffrey, but to no patent of earldom except her - own. Selden calls Maud's London patent the oldest on record. It is not - perhaps that, but it is older than this, though Dugdale thought not. - Having decided that Stephen's patent succeeded Maud's, it follows that - it (viz. this charter) passed after Nov. 1, 1141, when Stephen regained - his liberty and Geoffrey probably forsook the empress. The king was at - London on Dec. 7. In 1142 we are told (Lysons, _Camb._, 9) that this - Geoffrey and Earl Gilbert were sent by Stephen against the Isle of Ely. - He is called earl. We shall also have him attesting a charter of Queen - Matilda (Stephen's wife). - - "In 1143 he was seized in Stephen's court at St. Alban's. - - "In 1144 he is in high rebellion against Stephen, and an ally of Nigel, - Bishop of Ely. He is killed in Aug., 1144. - - "On the whole then it would appear that the Empress first made him an - earl as a means of securing London, the stronghold of Stephen's party, - but that, on Stephen's release, the earl changed sides and Stephen - opposed Maud's policy by a counter-patent (we have usually found - counter-charters, however, to be Maud's). We have also a high - probability that this charter passed in Dec., 1141, or soon after; for - Stephen does not appear at London in 1142, when Geoffrey is earl and in - Stephen's employ."[116] - -Here I must first clear the ground by explaining as to the "three -patents of creation" mentioned in this passage, that there were only -_two_ charters (not "patents") of creation—that of the king, which -survives in the original, and that of the Empress, which is known to us -from a transcript. As to the latter, it certainly "passed in the short -period during which Maud was in London," but that period, so far from -being "between June 24 and July 25, 1141," consisted only of a few days -ending with "June 24, 1141." The main point, however, at issue is the -priority of the creation-charters. It will be seen that Mr. Eyton jumped -at his conclusion, and then proceeded: "Having decided," etc. This is -the more surprising because that conclusion was at variance with what he -admits to have been his own principle, namely, that he had "usually -found counter-charters to be Maud's."[117] In this case his conclusion -was wrong, and his original principle was right. I think that Mr. -Eyton's error was due to his ignorance of the second charter granted by -the king to Geoffrey.[118] As he was well acquainted with the royal -charters in the duchy of Lancaster collection it is not easy to -understand how he came to overlook this very long one, which is, as it -were, the keystone to the arch I am about to construct. - -It is my object to make Geoffrey's charters prove their own sequence. -When once arranged in their right order, it will be clear from their -contents that this order is the only one possible. We must not attempt -to decide their dates till we have determined their order. But when that -order has been firmly established, we can approach the question of dates -with comparative ease and confidence. - -To determine from internal evidence the sequence of these charters, we -must arrange them in an ascending scale. That is to say, each charter -should represent an advance on its immediate predecessor. Tried by this -test, our four main charters will assume, beyond dispute, this relative -order. - - (1) First charter of the king. - (2) First charter of the Empress. - (3) Second charter of the king. - (4) Second charter of the Empress. - -The order of the three last is further established by the fact that the -grants in the second are specifically confirmed by the third, while the -third is expressly referred to in the fourth. The only one, therefore, -about which there could possibly be a question is the first, and the -fact that the second charter represents a great advance upon it is in -this case the evidence. But there is, further, the fact that the place I -have assigned it is the only one in the series that it can possibly -occupy. Nor could Mr. Eyton have failed to arrive at this conclusion had -he included within his sphere of view the second charter of the king. - -It is clear that Mr. Eyton was here working from the statements of -Dugdale alone. For the three charters he deals with are those which -Dugdale gives. The order assigned to these charters by Dugdale and Mr. -Eyton respectively can be thus briefly shown:— - - Right order 1 2 3 4 - - Eyton's order 2 4 1 - - Dugdale's order 1 4 2 - -How gravely Mr. Eyton erred in his conclusions will be obvious from this -table. But it is necessary to go further still, and to say that of the -seven charters affecting Geoffrey de Mandeville, three would seem to -have been unknown to him, while of the rest, he assigned three, one -might almost say all four, to a demonstrably erroneous date. It may be -urged that this is harsh criticism, and the more so as its subject was -never published, and exists only in the form of notes. There is much to -be said for this view, but the fact remains that rash use is certain to -be made of these notes, unless students are placed on their guard. That -this should be so is due not only to Mr. Eyton's great and just -reputation as a laborious student in this field, but also to the -exaggerated estimate of the value and correctness of these notes which -was set, somewhat prominently, before the public.[119] - -Advancing from the question of position to that of actual date, we will -glance at the opinion of another expert, Mr. Walter de Gray Birch. We -learn from him, as to the date of this first creation-charter, that— - - "The dates of the witnesses appear to range between A.D. 1139 and A.D. - 1144.... The actual date of the circumstances mentioned in this - document is a matter of question.... He [Geoffrey] was slain on the - 14th of September, A.D. 1144, and therefore this document must be prior - to that date."[120] - -We see now that it is by no means easy to date this charter with -exactness. It will be best, in pursuance of my usual practice, to begin -by clearing the ground. - -If we could place any trust in the copious chronicle of Walden Abbey, -which is printed (in part) in the _Monasticon_ from the Arundel -manuscript, our task would be easy enough. For we are there told that -Stephen had already created Geoffrey an earl when, in 1136, he founded -Walden Abbey.[121] And, in his foundation charter, he certainly styles -himself an earl.[122] But, alas for this precious narrative, it brings -together at the ceremony three bishops, Robert of London, Nigel of Ely, -and William of Norwich, of whom Robert of London was not appointed till -1141, while William of Norwich did not obtain that see till 1146! - -Dismissing, therefore, this evidence, we turn to the fact that no -creation of an earldom by Stephen is mentioned before 1138. But we have -something far more important than this in the occurrence at the head of -the witnesses to this creation-charter, of the name of William of Ypres, -the only name, indeed, among the witnesses that strikes one as a note of -time. Mr. Eyton wrote: "A deed which I have dated 1140 ... is his first -known attestation."[123] I have found no evidence contrary to this -conclusion. It would seem probable that when the arrest of the bishops -"gave," in Dr. Stubbs' words, "the signal for the civil war," Stephen's -preparations for the approaching struggle would include the summons to -his side of this experienced leader, who had hitherto been fighting in -Normandy for his cause. Indeed, we know that it was so, for he was at -once despatched against the castle of Devizes.[124] - -Happily, however, there remains a writ, which should incidentally, we -shall find, prove the key to the problem. This, which is printed among -the footnotes in Madox's _Baronia Anglica_ (p. 231), from the muniments -of Westminster Abbey, is addressed "Gaufrido de Magnavilla" simply, and -is, therefore, previous to his elevation to the earldom. Now, as this -writ refers to the death of Roger, Bishop of Salisbury, it must be later -than the 11th of December, 1139.[125] Consequently Geoffrey's charter -must be subsequent to that date. It must also be previous to the battle -of Lincoln (February, 1141), because, as I observed at the outset, it -must be previous to the charter of the Empress. We therefore virtually -narrow its limit to the year 1140, for Stephen had set out for Lincoln -before the close of the year.[126] Let us try and reduce it further -still. What was the date of the above writ? Stephen, on the death of -Bishop Roger, hastened to visit Salisbury.[127] He went there from -Oxford to spend Christmas (1139), and then returned to Reading (_Cont. -Flor. Wig._). Going and returning he would have passed through Andover, -the place at which this writ is tested. Thus it could have been, and -probably was, issued at this period (December, 1139). Obviously, if it -was issued in the course of 1140, this would reduce still further the -possible limit within which Geoffrey's charter can have passed. -Difficult though it is to trace the incessant movements of the king -throughout this troubled year, he certainly visited Winchester, and -(probably thence) Malmesbury. Still we have not, I believe, proof of his -presence at Andover.[128] And there are other grounds, I shall now show, -for thinking that the earldom was conferred before March, 1140. - -William of Newburgh, speaking of the arrest of Geoffrey de Mandeville, -assures us that Stephen bore an old grudge against him, which he had -hitherto been forced to conceal. Its cause was a gross outrage by -Geoffrey, who, on the arrival of Constance of France, the bride of -Eustace the heir-apparent, had forcibly detained her in the Tower.[129] -We fix the date of this event as February or March, 1140, from the words -of the Continuator of Florence,[130] and that date agrees well with -Henry of Huntingdon's statement, that Stephen had bought his son's bride -with the treasure he obtained by the death of the great Bishop of -Salisbury (December 11, 1139).[131] - -It would seem, of course, highly improbable that this audacious insult -to the royal family would have been followed by the grant of an earldom. -We might consequently infer that, in all likelihood, Geoffrey had -already obtained his earldom. - -We have, however, to examine the movements of Stephen at the time. The -king returned, as we saw, to Reading, after spending his Christmas at -Salisbury. He was then summoned to the Fen country by the revolt of the -Bishop of Ely, and he set out thither, says Henry of Huntingdon, "post -Natale" (p. 267). He _may_ have taken Westminster on his way, but there -is no evidence that he did. He had, however, returned to London by the -middle of March, to take part in a Mid-Lent council.[132] His movements -now become more difficult to trace than ever, but it may have been after -this that he marched on Hereford and Worcester.[133] Our next glimpse of -him is at Whitsuntide (May 26), when he kept the festival in sorry state -at the Tower.[134] It has been suggested that it was for security that -he sought the shelter of its walls. But this explanation is disposed of -by the fact that the citizens of London were his best friends and -proved, the year after, the virtual salvation of his cause. It would -seem more likely that he was anxious to reassert his impaired authority -and to destroy the effect of Geoffrey's outrage, which might otherwise -have been ruinous to his _prestige_.[135] - -It was, as I read it, at the close of Whitsuntide, that is, about the -beginning of June, that the king set forth for East Anglia, and, -attacking Hugh Bigod, took his castle of Bungay.[136] - -In August the king again set forth to attack Hugh Bigod;[137] and either -to this, or to his preceding East Anglian campaign, we may safely assign -his charter, granted at Norwich, to the Abbey of Reading.[138] Now, the -first witness to this charter is Geoffrey de Mandeville himself, who is -not styled an earl. We learn, then, that, at least as late as June, -1140, Geoffrey had not received his earldom. This would limit the date -of his creation to June-December, 1140, or virtually, at the outside, a -period of six months. - -Such, then, is the ultimate conclusion to which our inquiry leads us. -And if it be asked why Stephen should confer an earldom on Geoffrey at -this particular time, the reply is at hand in the condition of affairs, -which had now become sufficiently critical for Geoffrey to begin the -game he had made up his mind to play. For Stephen could not with -prudence refuse his demand for an earldom.[139] - -The first corollary of this conclusion is that "the second type" of -Stephen's great seal (which is that appended to this charter) must have -been already in use in the year 1140, that is to say, before his fall in -1141. - -Mr. Birch, who, I need hardly say, is the recognized authority on the -subject, has devoted one of his learned essays on the Great Seals of the -Kings of England to those of Stephen.[140] He has appended to it -photographs of the two types in use under this sovereign, and has given -the text of nineteen original sealed charters, which he has divided into -two classes according to the types of their seals. The conclusion at -which he arrived as the result of this classification was that the -existence of "two distinctly variant types" is proved (all traces of a -third, if it ever existed, being now lost), one of which represents the -earlier, and the other the later, portion of the reign.[141] To the -former belong nine, and to the latter ten of the charters which he -quotes in his paper. The only point on which a question can arise is the -date at which the earlier was replaced by the later type. Mr. Birch is -of opinion that— - - "the consideration of the second seal tends to indicate the alteration - of the type subsequent to his liberation from the hands of the Empress, - and it is most natural to suppose that this alteration is owing to the - destruction or loss of his seal consequent to his own capture and - incarceration" (p. 15). - -There can be no doubt that this is the most natural suggestion; but if, -as I contend, the very first two of the charters adduced by Mr. Birch as -specimens of the later type are previous to "his capture and -incarceration," it follows that his later great seal must have been -adopted before that event. One of these charters is that which forms the -subject of this chapter; the other is preserved among the records of the -duchy of Lancaster.[142] At the date when the latter was granted, the -king was in possession of the temporalities of the see of Lincoln, which -he had seized on the arrest of the bishops in June, 1139. As Alexander -had regained possession of his see by the time of the battle of Lincoln, -this charter must have passed before Stephen's capture, and most -probably passed a year or more before. We have then to account for the -adoption by Stephen of a new great seal, certainly before 1141, and -possibly as early as 1139. Is it not possible that this event may be -connected with the arrest of the chancellor and his mighty kinsmen in -June, 1139, and that the seal may have been made away with in his and -their interest, as on the flight of James II., in order to increase the -confusion consequent on that arrest?[143] - -And now we come to Geoffrey's charter itself[144]:— - - "S. Rex Ang[lorum] Archiepiscopis Episcopis Abbatibus Comitibus - Justiciis Baronibus Vicecomitibus et Omnibus Ministris et fidelibus - suis francis et Anglis totius Angliæ salutem. Sciatis me fecisse - Comitem de Gaufr[ido] de Magnauillâ de Comitatu Essex[e] hereditarie. - Quare uolo et concedo et firmiter precipio quod ipse et heredes sui - post eum hereditario jure teneant de me et de heredibus meis bene et in - pace et libere et quiete et honorifice sicut alii Comites mei de terrâ - meâ melius vel liberius vel honorificentius tenent Comitatus suos unde - Comites sunt cum omnibus dignitatibus et libertatibus et - consuetudinibus cum quibus alii Comites mei prefati dignius vel - liberius tenent. - - "T[estibus] Will[elm]o de Iprâ et Henr[ico] de Essexâ[145] et Joh[ann]e - fil[io] Rob[erti] fil[ii] Walt[eri][146] et Rob[erto] de Nouo - burgo[147] et Mainfen[ino] Britoñ[148] et Turg[esio] de Abrinc[is][149] - et Will[elm]o de S[an]c[t]o Claro[150] et Will[elm]o de - Dammart[in][151] et Ric[ardo] fil[io] Ursi[152] et Will[elm]o de - Auco[153] et Ric[ardo] fil[io] Osb[erti][154] et Radulfo de Wiret[155] - (_sic_) et Eglin[o][156] et Will[elm]o fil[io] Alur[edi][157] et - Will[elmo] filio Ernald[i].[158] Apud Westmonasterium." - -Taking this, as I believe it to be, as our earliest charter of creation -extant or even known, the chief point to attract our notice is its -intensely hereditary character. Geoffrey receives the earldom -"hereditarie," for himself "et heredes sui post eum hereditario jure." -The terms in which the grant is made are of tantalizing vagueness; and, -compared with the charters by which it was followed, this is remarkable -for its brevity, and for the total omission of those accompanying -concessions which the statements of our historians would lead us to -expect without fail.[159] - -We must now pass from the grant of this charter to the great day of -Lincoln (February 2, 1141), where the fortunes of England and her king -were changed "in the twinkling of an eye" by the wild charge of "the -Disinherited," as they rode for death or victory.[160] - -[98] _Rotuli Scaccarii Normanniæ_, II. clxxxviii. Such was also the -opinion of M. Leopold Delisle. The French editors, however, of Ordericus -write: "On ne sait auquel des nombreux Magneville, Mandeville, -Manneville de Normandie rapporter le berceau de cette illustre maison" -(iv. 108). - -[99] There is a curious story in the Waltham Chronicle (_De Inventione_, -cap. xiii.) that the Conqueror placed Geoffrey in the shoes of Esegar -the staller. The passage runs thus: "Cui [Tovi] successit filius ejus -Adelstanus pater Esegari qui stalra inventus est in Angliæ conquisitione -a Normannis, cuius hereditatem postea dedit conquisitor terræ, rex -Willelmus, Galfrido de Mandevile proavi presentis comitis Willelmi. -Successit quidem Adelstanus patri suo Tovi, non in totam quidem -possessionem quam possederat pater, sed in eam tantum quæ pertinebat ad -stallariam, quam nunc habet comes Willelmus." The special interest of -this story lies in the official connection of Esegar [or Ansgar] the -staller with London and Middlesex, combined with the fact that Geoffrey -occupied the same position. See p. 354, and Addenda. - -[100] "Post cujus [_i.e._ Galfridi] mortem reliquit filium suum hæredem, -cui firmitas turris Londoniarum custodienda committitur. Nobili cum Rege -magnificé plura gessit patri non immerito in rebus agendis coæqualis" -(_Monasticon_). Dugdale's error, as we might expect, is followed by -later writers, Mr. Clark treating Geoffrey as the first "hereditary -constable," and his son, whom with characteristic inaccuracy he -transforms from "William" into "Walter," as the second (_Mediæval -Military Architecture_, ii. 253, 254). The French editors of Ordericus -(iv. 108) strangely imagined that William was brother, not son, of -Geoffrey de Mandeville. - -[101] "In arce Lundoniensi Guillelmo de Magnavilla custodiendus in -vinculis traditus est" (iv. 108). - -[102] See for instance _Abingdon Cartulary_, ii. 73, 85, 116, where he -attests charters of _circ._ 1110-1112. - -[103] _Monasticon_, iii. 433. He founds the priory "pro anima Athelaisæ -primæ uxoris meæ, matris filiorum meorum jam defunctæ;" and "Lecelina -domina uxor mea" is a witness to the charter. - -[104] It is necessary to check by authentic charters and other -trustworthy evidence the chronicles printed in the _Monasticon_ under -Walden Abbey. One of these was taken from a long and interesting MS., -formerly in the possession of the Royal Society, but now among the -Arundel MSS. in the British Museum. This, which is only partially -printed, and which ought to be published in its entirety, has the -commencement wanting, and is, unfortunately, very inaccurate for the -early period of which I treat. It is this narrative which makes the wild -misstatements as to the circumstances of the foundation, which grossly -misdates Geoffrey's death, etc., etc. All its statements are accepted by -Dugdale. The other chronicle, which he printed from Cott. MS., Titus, D. -20, is far more accurate, gives Geoffrey's death correctly, and rightly -assigns him as wife the _sister_ (not the daughter) of the Earl of -Oxford, thus correcting Dugdale's error. It is the latter chronicle -which Dugdale has misquoted with reference to the charge of the Tower. - -[105] Who was really Peter de Valognes. - -[106] "Madox ... has shown ... that Geoffrey Fitzpeter, Earl of Essex, -obtained from the Crown Grants of the shrievalty of the Counties of -Essex and Hertford when the Earls, commonly called Earls of Clare, were -Earls of Hertford, and had the Third Penny of the Pleas of that County" -(iii. 69, ed. 1829). - -[107] "The County of Hertford appears to have been, at the time of the -Survey, in the King's hands, and Peter was then Sheriff; and the -Sheriffwick of Hertfordshire was afterwards granted in Fee, by the -Empress Maud, to Geoffrey de Mandeville, Earl of Essex, at a rent as his -father and grandfather had held it. The father of Geoffrey was Geoffrey -Fitz Peter, and probably was son of Peter, the Sheriff at the time of -the Survey. The first trace which the Committee has discovered of the -title of the Earls of Clare to the Third Penny of the County is in the -reign of Henry the Second, subsequent to the grants under which the -Earls of Essex claimed the Shrievalty in fee, at a fee-farm rent. But -the grant of the Third Penny must have been of an earlier date, as the -grant to the Earl of Essex was subject to that charge. The family of -Clare must therefore have had the Third Penny either before or early in -the Reign of King Stephen" (iii. 125). - -[108] _Const. Hist._, i. 362. - -[109] _Official Baronage_, ii. 175. - -[110] See Appendix C. - -[111] See Frontispiece. - -[112] _Degrees of England._ - -[113] "Note that this is the most ancient creation-charter which hath -ever been known." _Vide_ Selden, _Titles of Honour_, p. 647. - -[114] _Historic Peerage_, p. 178. - -[115] _Journ. Brit. Arch. Ass._, xxxi. 386. - -[116] _Addl. MSS._, 31,943, fol. 97. - -[117] Comp. fol. 96: "My position is that where this system of -counter-charters between Stephen and the Empress _is proved_, the former -generally is the first in point of date." - -[118] See p. 41 _ad pedem_. - -[119] _Notes and Queries_, 6th Series, v. 83. - -[120] _On the Great Seal of King Stephen_, pp. 19, 20. - -[121] "Apud regem Stephanum, ac totius regni majores tanti erat ut -nomine comitis et re jampridem dignus haberetur" (_Mon. Angl._, vol. iv. -p. 141). - -[122] "Gaufridus de Magnavillâ comes Essexe" (_ibid._). - -[123] _Addl. MSS._ 31,943, fol. 85 _dors._ - -[124] _Ordericus Vitalis_, vol. v. p. 120. - -[125] See p. 282, _n._ 4. - -[126] "Protractaque est obsidio [Lincolnie] a diebus Natalis Domini -(1140) usque ad Ypapanti Domini" (_Will. Newburgh_, i. 39). - -[127] To this visit may be assigned three charters (_Sarum Charters and -Documents_, pp. 9-11) of interest for their witnesses. Two of them are -attested by Philip the chancellor, who is immediately followed by Roger -de Fécamp. The latter had similarly followed the preceding chancellor, -Roger, in one of Stephen's charters of 1136 (see p. 263), which -establishes his official position. Among the other witnesses were Bishop -Robert of Hereford, Count Waleran of Meulan, Robert de Ver, William -Martel, Robert d'Oilli with Fulk his brother, Turgis d'Avranches, Walter -de Salisbury, Ingelram de Say, and William de Pont de l'Arche. - -[128] The "P. cancellarius," by whom the writ is tested, was a -chancellor of whom, according to Foss, virtually nothing is known. He -was, however, Philip (de Harcourt), on whom the king conferred at -Winchester, in 1140, the vacant see of Salisbury ("Rex Wintoniam veniens -consilio baronum suorum cancellario suo Philippo Searebyriensem -præsulatum ... dedit" (_Cont. Flor. Wig._)). But the chapter refused to -accept him as bishop, and eventually he was provided for by the see of -Bayeux. He is likely, with or without the king, to have gone straight to -Salisbury after his appointment at Winchester, in which case he would -not have been present at Andover, even if Stephen himself was. - -[129] "Acceptam ab eo injuriam rex caute dissimulabat, et tempus -opportunum quo se ulcisceretur, observabat. Injuria vero quam regi -nequam ille intulerat talis erat. Rex ante annos aliquot episcopi, ut -dictum est, Salesbiriensis thesauros adeptus, summa non modica regi -Francorum Lodovico transmissa, sororem ejus Constantiam Eustachio filio -suo desponderat; ... eratque hæc cum socru sua regina Lundoniis. Cumque -regina ad alium forte vellet cum eadem nuru sua locum migrare, memoratus -Gaufridus arci tunc præsidens, restitit; nuruque de manibus socrus, pro -viribus obnitentis, abstracta atque retenta, illam cum ignominia abire -permisit. Postea vero reposcenti, et justum motum pro tempore -dissimulanti, regi socero insignem prædam ægre resignavit" (ii. 45). - -[130] (1140) "Facta est desponsatio illorum mense Februario in -transmarinis partibus, matre regina Anglorum præsente" (ii. 725). - -[131] "Accipiens thesauros episcopi comparavit inde Constantiam sororem -Lodovici regis Francorum ad opus Eustachii filii sui" (p. 265). It is -amusing to learn from his champion (the author of the _Gesta Stephani_) -that the king spent this treasure on good and pious works. This -matrimonial alliance is deserving of careful attention, for the fact -that Stephen was prepared to buy it with treasure which he sorely needed -proves its importance in his eyes as a prop to his now threatened -throne. - -[132] _Annals of Waverley_ (_Ann. Mon._, ii. 228), where it is stated -that, at this council, Stephen gave the see of Salisbury to his -chancellor, Philip. According, however, to the Continuator of Florence, -he did this not at London, but at Winchester (see p. 47, _supra_). - -[133] See the Continuator of Florence. - -[134] _Will. Malms._ - -[135] See p. 81 as to the alleged riot in London and death of Aubrey de -Vere, three weeks before. - -[136] "Ad Pentecostem ivit rex cum exercitu suo super Hugonem Bigod in -Sudfolc" _Ann. Wav._ (_Ann. Mon._, ii. 228). - -[137] "Item in Augusto perrexit super eum et concordati sunt, sed non -diu duravit" (_ibid._). - -[138] Printed in _Archæological Journal_, xx. 291. Its second witness is -Richard de Luci, whom I have not elsewhere found attesting before -Christmas, 1141. - -[139] If, as would seem, Hugh Bigod appears first as an earl at the -battle of Lincoln, when he fought on Stephen's side, it may well be that -the "concordia" between them in August, 1140, similarly comprised the -concession by the king of comital rank. On the other hand, there is a -noteworthy charter (_Harl. Cart._, 43, c. 13) of Stephen, which seems to -belong to the winter of 1140-1, to which Hugh Bigod is witness, not as -an earl, so that his creation may have taken place very shortly before -Stephen's fall. As this charter, according to Mr. Birch, has the second -type of Stephen's seal, it strengthens the view advanced in the text. - -[140] _Transactions of the Royal Society of Literature_, vol. xi., New -Series. - -[141] Mr. Birch points out the interesting fact that while the earlier -type has an affinity to that of the great seal of Henry I., the later -approximates to that adopted under Henry II. - -[142] _Royal Charters_, No. 15. See my _Ancient Charters_, p. 39. - -[143] Dr. Stubbs observes that the consequence of the arrest was that -"the whole administration of the country ceased to work" (_Const. -Hist._, i. 326). - -[144] Cotton Charter, vii. 4. See Frontispiece. - -[145] This is the well-known Henry de Essex (see Appendix U), son of -Robert (_Rot. Pip._, 31 Hen. I.), and grandson of Swegen of Essex -(Domesday). He witnessed several of Stephen's charters, probably later -in the reign, but was also a witness to the Empress's charters to the -Earls of Oxford and of Essex (_vide post_). - -[146] A John, son of Robert fitz Walter (sheriff of East Anglia, _temp._ -Hen. I.), occurs in _Ramsey Cartulary_, i. 149. - -[147] Robert de Neufbourg, said to have been a younger son of Henry, -Earl of Warwick, occurs in connection with Warwickshire in 1130 (_Rot. -Pip._, 31 Hen. I.). Mr. Yeatman characteristically advances "the idea -that Robert de Arundel and Robert de Novoburgo were identical." He was -afterwards Justiciary of Normandy (_Ord. Vit._), having sided with -Geoffrey of Anjou (_Rot. Scacc. Norm._). He is mentioned in the -Pipe-Rolls of 2 and 4 Henry II. According to Dugdale, he died (on the -authority of the _Chronicon Normanniæ_), in August, 1158, a date -followed by Mr. Yeatman. Mr. Eyton, however (_Court and Itinerary_, p. -47), on the same authority (with a reference also to Gervase, which I -cannot verify) makes him die in August, 1159. The true date seems to -have been August 30, 1159, when he died at Bec (_Robert de Torigni_). - -[148] The Maenfininus Brito (Mr. Birch reads "Mamseu"), who, in the -Pipe-Roll of 1130 (p. 100), was late sheriff of Bucks. and Beds. -Probably father of Hamo filius Meinfelini, the Bucks. baron of 1166 -(_Cartæ_). See also p. 201, _n._ 2. - -[149] Turgis d'Avranches appears in the Pipe-Roll of 31 Hen. I. as -having married the widow of Hugh "de Albertivillâ." We shall find him -witnessing Stephen's second charter to the earl (Christmas, 1141). - -[150] William de St. Clare occurs in Dorset and Huntingdonshire in 1130 -(_Rot. Pip._, 31 Hen. I.). He was, I presume, of the same family as -Hamon de St. Clare, _custos_ of Colchester in 1130 (_ibid._), who was -among the witnesses to Stephen's Charter of Liberties (Oxford) in 1136. - -[151] Odo de Dammartin states in his _Carta_ (1166) that he held one fee -(in Norfolk) of the king, of which he had enfeoffed, _temp._ Hen. I., -his brother, William de Dammartin. - -[152] Richard fitz Urse is of special interest as the father (see _Liber -Niger_) of Reginald fitz Urse, one of Becket's murderers. He occurs -repeatedly in the Pipe-Roll of 31 Hen. I. After this charter he -reappears at the battle of Lincoln (Feb. 2, 1141):—"Capitur etiam -Ricardus filius Ursi, qui in ictibus dandis recipiendisque clarus et -gloriosus comparuit" (_Hen. Hunt._, p. 274). For his marriage to Sybil, -daughter of Baldwin de Bollers by Sybil de Falaise (_neptis_ of -Henry I.), see Eyton's _Shropshire_, xi. 127, and _Genealogist_, N.S., -iii. 195. One would welcome information on his connection, if any, with -the terrible sheriff, Urse d'Abetot, and his impetuous son; but I know -of none. - -[153] William de Eu appears as a tenant of four knights' fees _de veteri -feoffamento_ under Mandeville in the _Liber Niger_. - -[154] Richard fitz Osbert similarly figures (_Liber Niger_) as a tenant -of four knights' fees _de veteri feoffamento_. He also held a knight's -fee of the Bishop of Ely in Cambridgeshire. An Osbert fitz Richard, -probably his son, attests a charter of Geoffrey's son, Earl William, to -Walden Abbey. - -[155] A Ralph de _Worcester_ occurs in the _Cartæ_ and elsewhere under -Henry II. - -[156] "Eglino," an unusual name, probably represents "Egelino de -Furnis," who attests a charter of Stephen at Eye (_Formularium -Anglicanum_, p. 154). - -[157] William fitz Alfred held one fee of Mandeville _de novo -feoffamento_. He also attests the earl's foundation charter of Walden -Abbey (_Mon. Ang._, iv. 149). A William fitz Alfred occurs, also, in the -Pipe-Roll of 31 Hen. I. - -[158] William fitz Ernald similarly held one knight's fee _de novo -feoffamento_. He also attests the above foundation charter just after -William fitz Alfred. - -[159] See Appendix D, on "Fiscal Earls." - -[160] "Acies exhæredatorum, quæ præibat, percussit aciem regalem ... -tanto impetu, quod statim, quasi in ictu oculi, dissipata est. - - - - - CHAPTER III. - TRIUMPH OF THE EMPRESS. - - -At the time of this sudden and decisive triumph, the Empress had been in -England some sixteen months. With the Earl of Gloucester, she had landed -at Arundel,[161] on September 30, 1139,[162] and while her brother, -escorted by a few knights, made his way to his stronghold at Bristol, -had herself, attended by her Angevin suite, sought shelter with her -step-mother, the late queen, in the famous castle of Arundel. Stephen -had promptly appeared before its walls, but, either deeming the fortress -impregnable or being misled by treacherous counsel,[163] had not only -raised his blockade of the castle, but had allowed the Empress to set -out for Bristol, and had given her for escort his brother the legate, -and his trusted supporter the Count of Meulan.[164] From the legate her -brother had received her at a spot appointed beforehand, and had then -returned with her to Bristol. Here she was promptly visited by the -constable, Miles of Gloucester, who at once acknowledged her claims as -"the rightful heir" of England.[165] Escorted by him, she removed to -Gloucester, of which he was hereditary castellan, and received the -submission of that city, and of all the country round about.[166] The -statements of the chroniclers can here be checked, and are happily -confirmed and amplified by a charter of the Empress, apparently unknown, -but of great historical interest. The following abstract is given in a -transcript taken from the lost volume of the Great Coucher of the -duchy[167]:— - - "Carta Matilde Imperatricis in quâ dicit, quod[168] quando in Angliam - venit post mortem H. patris sui[169] Milo de Gloecestrâ quam citius - potuit venit ad se[170] apud Bristolliam et recepit me ut dominam et - sicut illam quam justum hæredem regni Angliæ recognovit, et inde me - secum ad Gloecestram adduxit et ibi homagium suum mihi fecit ligie - contra omnes homines. Et volo vos scire quod tunc quando homagium suum - apud Gloecestram recepit, dedi ei pro servicio suo in feodo et - hereditate sibi et heredibus suis castellum de Sancto Briavel(li) et - totam forestam de Dene,"[171] etc., etc. - -It was at Gloucester that she received the news of her brother's victory -at Lincoln (February 2, 1141), and it was there that he joined her, with -his royal captive, on Quinquagesima Sunday (February 9).[172] It was at -once decided that the king should be despatched to Bristol Castle,[173] -and that he should be there kept a prisoner for life.[174] - -In the utter paralysis of government consequent on the king's capture, -there was not a day to be lost on the part of the Empress and her -friends. The Empress herself was intoxicated with joy, and eager for the -fruits of victory.[175] Within a fortnight of the battle, she set out -from Gloucester, on what may be termed her first progress.[176] Her -destination was, of course, Winchester, the spot to which her eyes would -at once be turned. She halted, however, for a while at Cirencester,[177] -to allow time for completing the negotiations with the legate.[178] It -was finally agreed that, advancing to Winchester, she should meet him in -an open space, without the walls, for a conference. This spot a charter -of the Empress enables us apparently to identify with Wherwell.[179] -Hither, on Sunday, the 2nd of March, a wet and gloomy day,[180] the -clergy and people, headed by the legate, with the monks and nuns of the -religious houses, and such magnates of the realm as were present, -streamed forth from the city to meet her.[181] - -The compact ("pactum") which followed was strictly on the lines of that -by means of which Stephen had secured the throne. The Empress, on her -part, swore that if the legate would accept her as "domina," he should -henceforth have his way in all ecclesiastical matters. And her leading -followers swore that this oath should be kept. Thereupon the legate -agreed to receive her as "Lady of England," and promised her the -allegiance of himself and of his followers so long as she should keep -her oath. The whole agreement is most important, and, as such, should be -carefully studied.[182] - -On the morrow (March 3) the Empress entered Winchester, and was received -in state in the cathedral, the legate supporting her on the right, and -Bernard of St. David's on the left.[183] - -Now, it is most important to have a clear understanding of what really -took place upon this occasion. - -The main points to keep before us are—(1) that there are two distinct -episodes, that of the 2nd and 3rd of March, and that of the 7th and 8th -of April, five weeks intervening between them, during which the Empress -left Winchester to make her second progress; (2) that the first episode -was that of her _reception_ at Winchester, the second (also at -Winchester) that of her _election_. - -It is, perhaps, not surprising that our historians are here in woeful -confusion. Dr. Stubbs alone is, as usual, right. Writing from the -standpoint of a constitutional historian, he is only concerned with the -election of the Empress, and to this he assigns its correct date.[184] -In his useful and excellent _English History_, Mr. Bright, on the -contrary, ignores the interval, and places the second episode "a few -days after" the first.[185] Professor Pearson, whose work is that which -is generally used for this period, omits altogether the earlier -episode.[186] Mr. Birch, on the other hand, in his historical -introduction to his valuable _fasciculus_ of the charters of the -Empress, ignores altogether the later episode, though he goes into this -question with special care. Indeed, he does more than this; for he -transfers the election itself from the later to the earlier occasion, -and assigns to the episode of March 2 and 3 the events of April 7 and 8. -This cardinal error vitiates his elaborate argument,[187] and, indeed, -makes confusion worse confounded. Mr. Freeman, though, of course, in a -less degree, seems inclined to err in the same direction, when he -assigns to the earlier of the two episodes that importance which belongs -to the later.[188] - -Rightly to apprehend the bearing of this episode, we must glance back at -the preceding reigns. Dr. Stubbs, writing of Stephen's accession, -observes that "the example which Henry had set in his seizure and -retention of the crown was followed in every point by his -successor."[189] But on at least one main point the precedent was older -than this. The Conqueror, in 1066, and his heir, in 1087, had both -deemed it their first necessity to obtain possession of Winchester. -Winchester first, and then London, was a rule that thus enjoyed the -sanction of four successive precedents. To secure Winchester with all -that it contained, and with all the _prestige_ that its possession would -confer, was now, therefore, the object of the Empress. This object she -attained by the _pactum_ of the 2nd of March, and with it, as we have -seen, the conditional allegiance of the princely bishop of the see. - -Now, Henry of Blois was a great man. As papal legate, as Bishop of -Winchester, and as brother to the captive king, he possessed an -influence, in his triple capacity, which, at this eventful crisis, was -probably unrivalled in the land. But there was one thing that he could -not do—he could not presume, of his own authority, to depose or to -nominate an English sovereign. Indeed the very fact of the subsequent -election (April 8) and of his claim, audacious as it was, that that -election should be the work of the clergy, proves that he had no thought -of the even more audacious presumption to nominate the sovereign -himself. This, then, is fatal to Mr. Birch's contention that the Empress -was, on this occasion (March 3), elected "domina Angliæ." Indeed, as I -have said, it is based on a confusion of the two episodes. The legate, -as Mr. Birch truly says, "consented to recognize (_sic_) the Empress as -_Domina Angliæ_, or Lady, that is, Supreme Governor of England," but, -obviously, he could only do so on behalf of himself and of his -followers. We ought, therefore, to compare his action with that of Miles -of Gloucester in 1139, when, as we have seen, in the words of the -Empress— - - "_Recepit_ me ut dominam et sicut illam quam justum hæredem regni - Angliæ _recognovit_ ... et ibi homagium suum mihi fecit ligie contra - omnes homines."[190] - -Notice here the identity of expression—the "reception" of the Empress -and the "recognition" of her claims. I have termed the earlier episode -the "reception," and the later the "election" of the Empress. In these -terms is precisely expressed the distinction between the two events. -Take for instances the very passages appealed to by Mr. Birch himself:— - - "The exact words employed by William of Malmesbury are 'Nec dubitavit - Episcopus Imperatricem in Dominam Angliæ recipere' (_sic_). In another - place the same Henry de Blois declares of her, 'In Angliæ Normanniæque - Dominam eligimus' (_sic_). This regular election of Mathildis to the - dignity and office of _Domina Angliæ_ took place on Sunday, March 2, - A.D. 1141" (p. 378). - -Now we know, from William of Malmesbury himself, that "the regular -election in question" took place on the 8th of April, and that the -second of the passages quoted above refers to this later episode,[191] -while the other refers to the earlier.[192] I have drawn attention to -the two words (_recipere_ and _eligimus_) which he respectively applies -to the "reception" and the "election." The description of this -"reception" by William of Malmesbury[193] completely tallies with that -which is given by the Empress herself in a charter.[194] It should -further be compared with the account by the author of the _Gesta -Stephani_, of the similar reception accorded to Stephen in 1135.[195] - -But though the legate could open to the Empress the cathedral and the -cathedral city, he had no power over the royal castle. This we saw in -the case of Stephen, when his efforts to secure the constable's -adherence were fruitless till the king himself arrived. Probably the -constable, at this crisis, was the same William de Pont de l'Arche, but, -whoever he was, he surrendered to the Empress the castle and all that it -contained. In one respect, indeed, she was doomed to be bitterly -disappointed, for the royal treasury, which her adventurous rival had -found filled to overflowing, was by this time all but empty. One -treasure, however, she secured; the object of her desires, the royal -crown, was placed in her triumphant hands.[196] - -To the one historian who has dealt with this incident it has proved a -stumbling-block indeed. Mr. Freeman thus boldly attacks the problem:— - - "William of Malmesbury (_Hist. Nov._, iii. 42) seems distinctly to - exclude a coronation; he merely says, 'Honorifica factâ processione, - recepta est in ecclesia episcopatus Wintoniæ.' We must, therefore, see - only rhetoric when the Continuator says, 'Datur ejus dominio corona - Angliæ,' and when the author of the _Gesta_ (75) speaks of 'regisque - castello, et regni coronâ, quam semper ardentissime affectârat, ... in - deliberationem suam contraditis,' and adds that Henry 'dominam et - _reginam_ acclamare præcepit.' The Waverley Annalist, 1141, ventures to - say, 'Corona regni est ei tradita.'"[197] - -"Only rhetoric." Ah, how easily could history be written, if one could -thus dispose of inconvenient evidence! So far from being "rhetoric," it -is precisely because these statements are so strictly matter-of-fact -that the writer failed to grasp their meaning. Had he known, or -remembered, that the royal crown was preserved in the royal treasury, -the passage by which he is so sorely puzzled would have proved -simplicity itself.[198] - -Here again, light is thrown on these events and on the action of the -Empress by the precedent in the case of her father (1100), who, on the -death of his brother, hastened to Winchester Castle ("ubi regalis -thesaurus continebatur"), which was formally handed over to him with all -that it contained ("arx cum regalibus gazis filio regis Henrico reddita -est").[199] - -We have yet to consider the passage from the _Gesta_, to which Mr. Birch -so confidently appeals, and which is dismissed by Mr. Freeman as -"rhetoric." The passage runs:— - - "In publica se civitatis et fori audientia dominam et reginam acclamare - præcepit."[200] - -By a strange coincidence it has been misconstrued by both writers -independently. Mr. Freeman, as we saw, takes "præcepit" as referring to -Henry himself, and so does Mr. Birch.[201] Though the sentence as a -whole may be obscure, yet the passage quoted is quite clear. The words -are "præcepit _se_," not "præcepit illam." Thus the proclamation, if -made, was the doing of the Empress and not of the legate. Had the legate -been indeed responsible, his conduct would have been utterly -inconsistent. But as it is, the difficulty vanishes.[202] - -To the double style, "domina et regina," I have made reference above. My -object now is to examine this assumption of the style "regina" by the -Empress. It might perhaps be urged that the author of the _Gesta_ cannot -here be implicitly relied on. His narrative, however, is vigorous and -consistent; it is in perfect harmony with the character of the Empress; -and so far as the assumption of this style is concerned, it is -strikingly confirmed by that Oxford charter, to which we are now coming. -After her election (April 8), the Empress might claim, as queen elect, -the royal title, but if that were excusable, which is granting much, its -assumption before her election could admit of no defence. Yet, -headstrong and impetuous, and thirsting for the throne, she would -doubtless urge that her rival's fall rendered her at once _de facto_ -queen. But this was as yet by no means certain. Stephen's brother, as we -know, was talked of, and the great nobles held aloof. The Continuator, -indeed, asserts that at Winchester (March) were "præsules pene totius -Angliæ, barones multi, principes plurimi" (p. 130), but William, whose -authority is here supreme, does not, though writing as a partisan of the -Empress, make any allusion to their presence.[203] Moreover, the primate -was still in doubt, and of the five bishops who were present with the -legate, three (St. David's, Hereford, and Bath) came from districts -under the influence of the Empress, while the other two (Lincoln and -Ely) were still smarting beneath Stephen's action of two years before -(1139). - -The special interest, therefore, of this bold proclamation at Winchester -lies in the touch it gives us of that feminine impatience of the -Empress, which led her to grasp so eagerly the crown of England in her -hands, and now to anticipate, in this hasty manner, her election and -formal coronation.[204] - -Within a few days of her reception at Winchester, she retraced her steps -as far as Wilton, where it was arranged that she should meet the -primate, with whom were certain bishops and some lay folk.[205] -Theobald, however, professed himself unable to render her homage until -he had received from the king his gracious permission to do so.[206] For -this purpose he went on to Bristol, while the Empress made her way to -Oxford, and there spent Easter (March 30th).[207] We must probably -assign to this occasion her admission to Oxford by Robert d'Oilli.[208] -The Continuator, indeed, assigns it to May, and in this he is followed -by modern historians. Mr. Freeman, for instance, on his authority, -places the incident at that stage,[209] and so does Mr. Franck -Bright.[210] - -But the movements of the Empress, at this stage, are really difficult to -determine. Between her presence at Oxford (March 30)[211] and her -presence at Reading (May 5-7),[212] we know nothing for certain. One -would imagine that she must have attended her own election at Winchester -(April 7, 8), but the chroniclers are silent on the subject, though -they, surely, would have mentioned her presence. On the whole, it seems -most probable that the Continuator must be in error, when he places the -adhesion of Robert d'Oilli so late as May (at Reading) and takes the -Empress subsequently to Oxford, as if for the first time. - -It was, doubtless, through her "brother" Robert "fitz Edith" that his -step-father, Robert d'Oilli, was thus won over to her cause. It should -be noted that his defection from the captive king is pointedly mentioned -by the author of the _Gesta_, even before that of the Bishop of -Winchester, thus further confirming the chronology advanced above.[213] -At Oxford she received the submission of all the adjacent country,[214] -and also executed an important charter. This charter Mr. Birch has -printed, having apparently collated for the purpose no less than five -copies.[215] Its special interest is derived from the fact that not only -is it the earliest charter she is known to have issued after Stephen's -fall (with the probable exception of that to Thurstan de Montfort), but -it is also the only one of her charters in which we find the royal -phrases "ecclesiarum _regni mei_" and "pertinentibus _coronæ meæ_." Mr. -Birch writes of its testing-clause ("Apud Oxeneford Anno ab Incarnatione -Domini MC. quatragesimo"): - - The date of this charter is very interesting, because it is the only - example of an actual date calculated by expression of the years of the - Incarnation, which occurs among the entire series which I have been - able to collect.... Now, as the historical year in these times - commenced on the 25th of March, there is no doubt but that this charter - was granted to the Abbey of Hulme at some time between the 3rd and the - 25th of March, A.D. 1140-41.[216] - -Mr. Eyton has also independently discussed it (though his remarks are -still in MS.), and detects, with his usual minute care, a difficulty, in -one of the three witnesses, to which Mr. Birch does not allude. - - "St. Benet of Hulme. - - "The date given (1140) seems to combine with another circumstance to - lead to error. Matilda's style is 'Matild' Imp. H. regis filia,' not, - as usual, 'Anglorum domina.' One might therefore conclude that the deed - passed before the battle of Lincoln, and so in 1140. However, this - conclusion would be wrong, for though Matᵃ does not style herself - Queen, she asserts in the deed Royal rights and speaks of matters - pertaining 'coronæ meæ.' But we do not know that Maud was ever in - Oxford before Stephen's captivity, nor can we think it. Again, it is - certain that Robᵗ de Sigillo did not become Bishop of London till - after Easter, 1141, for at Easter, 1142, he expressly dates his own - deed 'anno primo pontif' mei.' He was almost certainly appointed when - Maud was in London in July, 1141, for he attests Milo's patent of - earldom on July 25."[217] - -The omission of the style "Anglorum domina" is, however, strictly -correct, and not, as Mr. Eyton thought, singular. For it was not till -her election on the 8th of April that she became entitled to use this -style. As for her assumption of the royal phrases, it is here simply -_ultra vires_. Then, as to the attesting bishop ("R. episcopo -Londoniensi"), his presence is natural, as he was a monk of Reading, and -his position would seem to be paralleled by that of his predecessor -Maurice, who appears as bishop in the Survey, though, probably, only -elect. As her father "gave the bishopric of Winchester" the moment he -was elected, and before he was crowned,[218] so the Empress "gave," it -would seem, the see of London to Robert "of the Seal," even before her -formal election—an act, it should be noted, thoroughly in keeping with -her impetuous assumption of the regal style. Besides the bishop and the -Earl of Gloucester, there is a third witness to this charter—"Reginaldo -filio Regis." No one, it seems, has noticed the fact that here alone, -among the charters of the Empress, Reginald attests not as an earl, -which confirms the early date claimed for this charter. A charter which -I assign to the following May is attested by him: "Reginaldo _comite_ -filio regis." This would seem to place his creation between the dates of -these charters, _i.e._ _circ._ April (1141).[219] To sum up, the -evidence of this charter is in complete agreement with that of William -of Malmesbury, when he states that the Empress spent Easter (March 30) -at Oxford; and we further learn from it that she must have arrived there -at least as early as the 24th of March. - -The fact that Mr. Freeman, in common with others, has overlooked this -early visit of the Empress in March, is no doubt the cause of his having -been misled, as I have shown, by the Continuator's statement. - -The Assembly at Winchester took place, as has been said, on the 7th and -8th of April. William of Malmesbury was present on the occasion, and -states that it was attended by the primate "and all the bishops of -England."[220] This latter phrase may, however, be questioned, in the -light of subsequent charter evidence. - -The proceedings of this council have been well described, and are so -familiar that I need not repeat them. On the 7th was the private -conclave; on the 8th, the public assembly. I am tempted just to mention -the curiously modern incident of the legate (who presided) commencing -the proceedings by reading out the letters of apology from those who had -been summoned but were unable to be present.[221] On the 8th the legate -announced to the Assembly the result of the previous day's conclave:— - - "filiam pacifici regis ... in Angliæ Normanniæque dominam eligimus, et - ei fidem et manutenementum promittimus."[222] - -On the 9th, the deputation summoned from London arrived and was informed -of the decision; on the 10th the assembly was dissolved. - -The point I shall here select for discussion is the meaning of the term -"domina Angliæ," and the effect of this election on the position of the -Empress. - -First, as to the term "domina Angliæ." Its territorial character must -not be overlooked. In the charters of the Empress, her style "Ang' -domina" becomes occasionally, though very rarely, "Anglor' domina," -proving that its right extension is "Angl_orum_ Domina," which differs, -as we have seen, from the chroniclers' phrase. The importance of the -distinction is this. "Rex" is royal and national; "dominus" is feudal -and territorial. We should expect, then, the first to be followed by the -nation ("Anglorum"), the second by the territory ("Angliæ"). But, in -addition to its normal feudal character, the term may here bear a -special meaning. - -It would seem that the clue to its meaning in this special sense was -first discovered by the late Sir William (then Mr.) Hardy ("an ingenious -and diligent young man," as he was at the time described) in 1836. He -pointed out that "Dominus Anglie" was the style adopted by Richard I. -"between the demise of his predecessor and his own coronation."[223] Mr. -Albert Way, in a valuable paper on the charters belonging to Reading -Abbey, which appeared some twenty-seven years later,[224] called -attention to the styles "Anglorum _Regina_" and "Anglorum _Domina_," as -used by the Empress.[225] As to the former, he referred to the charter -of the Empress at Reading, granting lands to Reading Abbey.[226] As to -the latter ("Domina Anglorum"), he quoted Mr. Hardy's paper on the -charter of Richard I., and urged that "the fact that Matilda was never -crowned Queen of England may suffice to account for her being thus -styled" (p. 283). He further quoted from William of Malmesbury the two -passages in which that chronicler applies this style to the -Empress,[227] and he carefully avoided assigning them both to the -episode of the 2nd of March. Lastly, he quoted the third passage, that -in the _Gesta Stephani_. - -Mr. Birch subsequently read a paper "On the Great Seals of King Stephen" -before the Royal Society of Literature (December 17, 1873), in which he -referred to Mr. Way's paper, as the source of one of the charters of -which he gave the text, and in which he embodied Mr. Way's observations -on the styles "Regina" and "Domina."[228] But instead, unfortunately, of -merely following in Mr. Way's footsteps, he added the startling error -that Stephen was a prisoner, and Matilda consequently in power, till -1143. He wrote thus:— - - "Did the king ever cease to exercise his regal functions? Were these - functions performed by any other constitutional sovereign meanwhile? - The events of the year 1141 need not to be very lengthily discussed to - demonstrate that for a brief period there was a break in Stephen's - sovereignty, and a corresponding assumption of royal power by another - ruler unhindered and unimpeached by the lack of any formality necessary - for its full enjoyment.... William of Malmesbury, writing with all the - opportunity of an eye-witness, and moving in the royal court at the - very period, relates at full length in his _Historia Novella_ (ed. - Hardy, for Historical Society, vol. ii. p. 774[229]), the particulars - of the conference held at Winchester subsequent to the capture of - Stephen after the battle of Lincoln, in the early part of the year, 4 - Non. Feb. A.D. 1141.... This election of Matilda as Domina of England - in place of Stephen took place on Sunday, March 2, 1141.... Until the - liberation of the king from his incarceration at Bristol, as a sequel - to the battle at Winchester in A.D. 1143, so disastrous to the hopes of - the Empress, she held her position as queen at London. The narrative of - the events of this period, as given by William of Malmesbury in the - work already quoted, so clearly points to her enjoyment of all temporal - power needed to constitute a sovereign, that we must admit her name - among the regnant queens of England" (pp. 12-14). - -Two years later (June 9, 1875), Mr. Birch read a paper before the -British Archæological Association,[230] in which, in the same words, he -advanced the same thesis. - -The following year (June 28, 1876), in an instructive paper read before -the Royal Society of Literature,[231] Mr. Birch wrote thus:— - - "As an example of new lights which the study of early English seals has - thus cast upon our history (elucidations, as it were, of facts which - have escaped the keen research of every one of our illustrious band of - historians and chroniclers for upwards of seven hundred years), an - examination into the history of the seal of Mathildis or Maud, the - daughter and heiress of King Henry I. (generally known as the Empress - Maud, or _Mathildis Imperatrix_, from the fact of her marriage with the - Emperor Henry V. of Germany), has resulted in my being fortunately - enabled to demonstrate that royal lady's undisputed right to a place in - all tables or schemes of sovereigns of England; nevertheless it is, I - believe, a very remarkable fact that her position with regard to the - throne of England should have been so long, so universally, and so - persistently ignored, by all those whose fancy has led them to accept - facts at second hand, or from perfunctory inquiries into the sources of - our national history rather than from careful step-by-step pursuit of - truth through historical tracks which, like indistinct paths in the - primæval forest, often lead the wanderer into situations which at the - outset could not have been foreseen. In a paper on this subject which I - prepared last year, and which is now published in the _Journal of the - British Archæological Association_, I have fully explained my views of - the propriety of inserting the name of Mathildis or Maud as Queen of - England into the History Tables under the date of 1141-1143; and as - this position has never as yet been impugned, we may take it that it is - right in the main; and I have shown that until the liberation of King - Stephen from his imprisonment at Bristol, as a sequel to the battle at - Winchester in 1143 (so disastrous to the prospects of Mathildis), she - held her position as queen, most probably at London.... - - "Now, I have introduced this apparent digression in this place to point - to the importance of the study of historical seals, for my claim to the - restoration of this queen's name is not due so much to my own - researches as it is to the unaccountable oversight of others."[232] - -I fear that, notwithstanding Mr. Birch's criticism on all who have gone -before him, a careful analysis of the subject will reveal that the only -addition he has made to our previous knowledge on this subject, as set -forth in Mr. Way's papers, consists in two original and quite -incomprehensible errors: one of them, the assigning of Maud's election -to the episode of the 2nd and 3rd of March, instead of to that of the -7th and 8th of April (1141); the other, the assigning of Stephen's -liberation to 1143 instead of 1141. When we correct these two errors, -springing (may we say, in Mr. Birch's words?) "from perfunctory -inquiries into the sources of our national history rather than from -careful step-by-step pursuit of the truth," we return to the _status quo -ante_, as set forth in Mr. Way's paper, and find that "the unaccountable -oversight," by all writers before Mr. Birch, of the fact that the -Empress "held her position as queen," for more than two years, "most -probably at London," is due to the fact that her said rule lasted only a -few months, or rather, indeed, a few weeks, while in London itself it -was numbered by days. - -But though it has been necessary to speak plainly on Mr. Birch's -unfortunate discovery, one can probably agree with his acceptance of the -view set forth by Mr. Hardy, and espoused by Mr. Way, that the style -"domina" represents that "dominus" which was used as "a temporary title -for the newly made monarch during the interval which was elapsing -between the death of the predecessor and the coronation day of the -living king."[233] To Mr. Hardy's instance of Richard's style, "Dominus -Angl[iæ]," August, 1189, we may add, I presume, that of John, "Dominus -Angliæ," April 17th and 29th, (1199).[234] Now, if this usage be clearly -established, it is certainly a complete explanation of a style of which -historians have virtually failed to grasp the relevance. - -But a really curious parallel, which no one has pointed out, is that -afforded in the reign immediately preceding this, by the case of the -king's second wife. Great importance is rightly attached to "the -election of the Empress as 'domina Angliæ'" (as Dr. Stubbs describes -it[235]), and to the words which William of Malmesbury places in the -legate's mouth;[236] and yet, though the fact is utterly ignored, the -very same formula of election is used in the case of Queen "Adeliza," -twenty years before (1121)! - -The expression there used by the Continuator is this: "Puella prædicta, -_in regni dominam electa_, ... regi desponsatur" (ii. 75). That is to -say that before her marriage (January 29) and formal coronation as queen -(January 30) she was elected, it would seem, "Domina Angliæ." The phrase -"in regni dominam electa" precisely describes the _status_ of the -Empress after her election at Winchester, and before that formal -coronation at Westminster which, as I maintain, was fully intended to -follow. We might even go further still, and hold that the description of -Adeliza as "futuram regni dominam,"[237] when the envoys were despatched -to fetch her, implies that she had been so elected at that great -Epiphany council, in which the king "decrevit sibi in uxorem -Atheleidem."[238] But I do not wish to press the parallel too far. In -any case, precisely as with the Empress afterwards, she was clearly -"domina Angliæ" before she was crowned queen. And, if "electa" means -elected, the fact that these two passages, referring to the two -elections (1121 and 1141), come from two independent chronicles proves -that the terms employed are no idiosyncracy, but refer to a recognized -practice of the highest constitutional interest. - -Of course the fact that the same expression is applied to the election -of Queen "Adeliza" as to that of the Empress herself, detracts from the -importance of the latter event, regarded as an election to the throne. - -At the same time, I hold that we should remember, as in the case of -Stephen, the feudal bearing of "dominus." For herein lies its difference -from "Rex." The "dominatus" of the Empress over England is attained step -by step.[239] At Cirencester, at Winchester, at Oxford, she becomes -"domina" in turn.[240] Not so with the royal title. She could be "lady" -of a city or of a man: she could be "queen" of nothing less than -England. - -I must, however, with deep regret, differ widely from Mr. Birch in his -conclusions on the styles adopted by the Empress. These he classes under -three heads.[241] The second ("Mathildis Imperatrix Henrici regis filia -et Anglorum regina") is found in only two charters, which I agree with -him in assigning "to periods closely consecutive," not indeed to the -episode of March 2 and 3, but to that of April 7 and 8. Of his remaining -twenty-seven charters, thirteen belong to his first class and fourteen -to his third, a proportion which makes it hard to understand why he -should speak of the latter as "by far the most frequent." - -Of the first class ("Mathildis Imperatrix Henrici Regis filia") Mr. -Birch writes:— - - "It is most probable that these documents are to be assigned to a - period either before the death of her father, King Henry I., or at most - to the initial years of Stephen, before any serious attempt had been - made to obtain the possession of the kingdom." - -Now, it is absolutely certain that not a single one of them can be -assigned to the period suggested, that not one of them is previous to -that 2nd of March (1141) which Mr. Birch selects as his turning-point, -still less to "the death of her father" (1135). Nay, on Mr. Birch's own -showing, the first and most important of these documents should be dated -"between the 3rd of March and the 24th of July, A.D. 1141" (p. 380), and -two others (Nos. 21, 28) "must be ascribed to a date between 1149 and -1151" (p. 397 _n._). Nor is even this all, for as in two others the son -of the Empress is spoken of as "King Henry," they must be as late as the -reign of Henry II. - -So, also, with the third class ("Mathildis Imperatrix Henrici regis -filia et Anglorum domina"), of which we are told that it— - - "was in the first instance adopted—I mean used—in those charters which - contain the word and were promulgated between A.D. 1135 and A.D. 1141, - by reason of the ceremony of coronation not yet having been performed; - and with regard to those charters which are placed subsequent to A.D. - 1141, either because the ceremony was still unperformed, although she - had the possession of the crown, or because of some stipulation with - her opponents in power" (p. 383). - -Here, again, it is absolutely certain that not a single one of these -charters was "promulgated between A.D. 1135 and A.D. 1141." We have, -therefore, no evidence that the Empress, in her charters, adopted this -style until the election of April 7 and 8 (1141) enabled her justly to -do so. But the fact is that Mr. Birch's theory is not only based, as we -have seen, on demonstrably erroneous hypotheses, but must be altogether -abandoned as opposed to every fact of the case. For the two styles which -he thus distinguishes were used at the same time, and even in the same -document. For instance, in the very first of Mr. Birch's documents, that -great charter to Geoffrey de Mandeville, to which we shall come, in the -next chapter, issued at the height of Matilda's power, and on the eve, -as we shall see, of her intended coronation, "Anglorum domina" is -omitted from her style, and the document is therefore, by Mr. Birch, -assigned to the first of his classes. Yet I shall show that in a portion -of the charter which has perished, and which is therefore unknown to Mr. -Birch, her style is immediately repeated with the addition "Anglorum -Domina." It is clear, then, on Mr. Birch's own showing, that this -document should be assigned both to his first and to his third classes, -and, consequently, that the distinction he attempts to draw has no -foundation in fact. - -Mr. Birch's thesis would, if sound, be a discovery of such importance -that I need not apologize for establishing, by demonstration, that it is -opposed to the whole of the evidence which he himself so carefully -collected. And when we read of Stephen's "incarceration at Bristol, -which was not terminated until the battle of Winchester in A.D. 1143, -when the hopes of the Empress were shattered" (p. 378), it is again -necessary to point out that her flight from Winchester took place not in -1143, but in September, 1141. Mr. Birch's conclusion is thus expressed:— - - "We may, therefore, take it as fairly shown that until the liberation - of the king from his imprisonment at Bristol (as a sequel to the battle - at Winchester in A.D. 1143, so disastrous to the queen's hopes) she - held her position, as queen, most probably at London," etc. (p. 380). - -Here, as before, it is needful to remember that the date is all wrong, -and that the triumph of the Empress, so far from lasting two years or -more, lasted but for a few months of the year 1141, in the course of -which she was not at London for more than a few days. - -And now let us turn to my remaining point, "the effect of this election -on the position of the Empress." - -To understand this, we must glance back at the precedents of the four -preceding reigns. The Empress, as I have shown, had followed these -precedents in making first for Winchester: she had still to follow them -in securing her coronation and anointing at Westminster. It is passing -strange that all historians should have lost sight of this circumstance. -For the case of her own father, in whose shoes she claimed to stand, was -the aptest precedent of all. As he had been elected at Winchester, and -then crowned at Westminster, so would she, following in his footsteps. -The growing importance of London had been recognized in successive -coronations from the Conquest, and now that it was rapidly supplanting -Winchester as the destined capital of the realm, it would be more -essential than ever that the coronation should there take place, and -secure not merely the _prestige_ of tradition, but the assent of the -citizens of London.[242] - -It has not, however, so far as I know, occurred to any writer that it -was the full intention of the Empress and her followers that she should -be crowned and anointed queen, and that, like those who had gone before -her, she should be so crowned at Westminster. It is because they failed -to grasp this that Dr. Stubbs and Mr. Freeman are both at fault. The -former writes:— - - "Matilda became the Lady of the English; she was not crowned, because - perhaps the solemn consecration which she had received as empress - sufficed, or perhaps Stephen's royalty was so far forth - indefeasible."[243] - - "No attempt was made to crown the Empress; the legate simply proposes - that she should be elected Lady of England and Normandy. It is just - possible that the consecration which she had once received as empress - might be regarded as superseding the necessity of a new ceremony of the - kind, but it is far more likely that, so long as Stephen was alive and - not formally degraded, the right conferred on him by coronation was - regarded as so far indefeasible that no one else could be allowed to - share it."[244] - -Dr. Stubbs appears here to imply that we should have expected her -coronation to follow her election. And in this he is clearly right. Mr. -Freeman, however, oddly enough, seems to have looked for it _before_ her -election. This is the more strange in a champion of the elective -principle. He writes thus of her reception at Winchester, five weeks -before her election:— - - "If Matilda was to reign, her reign needed to begin by something which - might pass for an election and coronation. But her followers, Bishop - Henry at their head, seem to have shrunk from the actual crowning and - anointing ceremonies, which—unless Sexburh had, ages before, received - the royal consecration—had never, either in England or in Gaul, been - applied to a female ruler. Matilda was solemnly received in the - cathedral church of Winchester; she was led by two bishops, the legate - himself and Bernard of St. David's, as though to receive the crown and - unction, but no crowning and no unction is spoken of."[245] - -At the same time, he recurs to the subject, after describing the -election, thus:— - - "Whether any consecration was designed to follow, whether at such - consecration she would have been promoted to the specially royal title, - we are not told."[246] - -But all this uncertainty is at once dispelled when we learn what was -really intended. Taken in conjunction with the essential fact that -"domina" possessed the special sense of the interim royal title, the -intention of the Empress to be crowned at Westminster, and so to become -queen in name as well as queen in deed, gives us the key to the whole -problem. It explains, moreover, the full meaning of John of Hexham's -words, when he writes that "David rex videns multa competere in -imperatricis neptis suæ promotionem post Ascensionem Domini (May 8) ad -eam in Suth-Anglia profectus est ... plurimosque ex principibus sibi -acquiescentes habuit ut ipsa promoveretur ad totius regni fastigium." We -shall see how this intention was only foiled by the sudden uprising of -the citizens; and in the names of the witnesses to Geoffrey's charter we -shall behold those, "tam episcopi quam cinguli militaris viri, qui _ad -dominam inthronizandam_ pomposé Londonias et arroganter convenerant."[247] - -[161] _Will. Malms._, p. 724; _Gesta Stephani_, p. 56. - -[162] _Will. Malms._, p. 724. See Appendix E. - -[163] Such are the alternatives presented by Henry of Huntingdon (p. -266). The treacherous counsel alluded to was that of his brother the -legate (_Gesta Stephani_, p. 57). According to John of Hexham (_Sym. -Dun._ ii. 302), Stephen acted "ex indiscretâ animi simplicitate." - -[164] _Will. Malms._, p. 725. - -[165] See Appendix F: "The Defection of Miles of Gloucester." - -[166] _Will. Malms._, p. 725; _Cont. Flor._, p. 118. Here the -Continuator's chronology is irreconcilable with that of our other -authorities. He states that the Empress removed to Gloucester on October -15, after a stay of two months at Bristol. This is, of course, -consistent, it should be noticed, with the date (August 1) assigned by -him for her landing. - -[167] The text is taken from the transcript in Lansdowne MS. 229, fol. -123, collated with Dugdale's transcript in his MSS. at the Bodleian -Library (L. 21). It will be seen that Dugdale transcribed _verbatim_, -while the other transcript begins in _narratio obliqua_. - -[168] "Sciatis quod" (D.). - -[169] "Mei" (D.). - -[170] "Me" (D.). - -[171] These were specially excepted from the grants of royal demesne -made by Henry II. to his son, the second earl. - -[172] _Cont. Flor._, p. 129; _Will. Malms._, p. 712; _Gesta_, p. 72. - -[173] _Ibid._; _John Hex._, p. 308; _Hen. Hunt._, p. 275. - -[174] _Gesta_, p. 72. - -[175] "Ob illiusmodi eventum vehementer exhilarata, utpote regnum sibi -juratum, sicut sibi videbatur, jam adepta" (_Cont. Flor._, p. 130). - -[176] _Cont. Flor._, 130. - -[177] "Simul et ejusdem civitatis sumens dominium" (_ibid._). - -[178] "Ut ipsam tanquam regis Henrici filiam et cui omnis Anglia et -Normannia jurata esset, incunctanter in ecclesiam et regnum reciperet" -(_Will. Malms._, p. 743). Compare the writer's description of the oath -(1127) that the magnates "imperatricem _incunctanter_ et sine ullâ -retractione dominam susciperent" (p. 690). - -[179] _Journ. B. A. A._, xxxi. 389. Mr. Howlett asserts that the -evidence of William of Malmesbury as to the date (2nd and 3rd of March) -"is refuted" by this charter, which places them a fortnight earlier -(Introduction to _Gesta Stephani_, p. xxii.). But I do not think the -evidence of the charter is sufficiently strong to overthrow the accepted -date. - -[180] "Pluvioso et nebuloso die" (_Will. Malms._, p. 743). - -[181] _Cont. Flor._, p. 130; _Will. Malms._, p. 743. - -[182] "Juravit et affidavit imperatrix episcopo, quod omnia majora -negotia in Anglia, precipueque donationes episcopatuum et abbatiarum, -ejus nutum spectarent, si eam ipse in sancta ecclesia in dominam -reciperet, et perpetuam ei fidelitatem teneret. Idem juraverunt cum ea, -et affidaverunt pro ea, Robertus frater ejus comes de Gloecestrâ, et -Brianus filius comitis marchio de Walingeford et Milo de Gloecestrâ, -postea comes de Hereford, et nonnulli alii. Nec dubitavit episcopus -imperatricem in dominam Angliæ recipere et ei cum quibusdam suis -affidare, quod, quamdiu ipsa pactum non infringeret, ipse quoque fidem -ei custodiret" (_Will. Malms._, 743, 744). The parallel afforded by the -customs of Bigorre, as recorded (it is alleged) in 1097, is so striking -as to deserve being quoted here. Speaking of the reception of a new -lord, they provide that "antequam habitatorum terræ fidejussores -accipiat, fide sua securos eos faciat ne extra consuetudines patrias vel -eas in quibus eos invenerit aliquod educat; hoc autem sacramento et fide -quatuor nobilium terræ faciat confirmari." - -[183] "Crastino, quod fuit quinto nonas Martii, honorifica facta -processione recepta est in ecclesia episcopatus Wintoniæ," etc., etc. -(_ibid._). - -[184] _Const. Hist._, i. 326 (_note_); _Early Plantagenets_, 22. - -[185] _English History for the Use of Public Schools_, i. 83. The -mistake may have arisen from a confusion with the departure of the -Empress from Winchester a few days ("paucis post diebus") after her -reception. - -[186] _History of England during the Early and Middle Ages_, i. 478. - -[187] _Journ. Brit. Arch. Ass._, xxxi. 377-380. - -[188] _Norm. Conq._, v. 303. At the same time it is right to add that -this is not a question of accuracy, but merely of treatment. In the -marginal notes the two episodes are respectively assigned to their -correct dates. - -[189] _Const. Hist._, i. 318. - -[190] Compare also, even further back, the action, in Normandy, of -Gingan Algasil in December, 1135, who, on the appearance of the Empress, -"[eam] ut naturalem dominam suscepit, eique ... oppida quibus ut -vicecomes, jubente rege præerat, subegit" (_Ord. Vit._, v. 56). - -[191] _Will. Malms._, p. 747. - -[192] _Ibid._, p. 743. - -[193] "Honorifica facta processione _recepta est_ in ecclesia" (p. 744). - -[194] "Idem prelatus et cives Wintonie honorifice in ecclesia et urbe -Wintonie me _receperunt_" (_Journ. Brit. Arch. Ass._, xxxi. 378) - -[195] "Præsul Wintonie ... cum dignioribus Wintonie civibus obvius ei -advenit, habitoque in communi brevi colloquio, in civitatem, secundam -duntaxat regni sedem, honorifice induxit" (p. 5). Note that in each case -the "colloquium" preceded the entry. - -[196] "Regisque castello, et regni coronâ, quam semper ardentissimé -affectârat thesaurisque quos licet perpaucos rex ibi reliquerat, in -deliberationem suam contraditis" (_Gesta_, 75). - -[197] _Norm. Conquest_, v. 804 (_note_). - -[198] As an instance of the crown being kept at Winchester, take the -entry in the Pipe-Roll of 4 Hen. II.: "In conducendis coronis Regis ad -Wirecestre de Wintoniâ," the crowns being taken out to be worn at -Worcester, Easter, 1158. Oddly enough, Mr. Freeman himself alludes, in -its place, to a similar taking out of the crown, from the treasury at -Winchester, to be worn at York, Christmas, 1069. The words of Ordericus, -as quoted by him, are: "Guillelmus ex civitate Guentâ jubet adferri -coronam, aliaque ornamenta regalia et vasa" (cf. _Dialogus_, I. 14). - -[199] _Ordericus Vitalis._ - -[200] _Gesta_, 75; _Journ. Brit. Arch. Ass._, xxxi. 378. - -[201] "He (_sic_) ordered that she should be proclaimed lady and queen." - -[202] The _Gesta_ itself is, on this point, conclusive, for it -distinctly states that the Empress "solito severius, solito et -arrogantius procedere et loqui, et cuncta cœpit peragere, adeo ut in -ipso mox domini sui capite reginam se totius Angliæ fecerit, _et -gloriata fuerit appellari_." - -[203] _Will. Malms._, 744. - -[204] To this visit (if the only occasion on which she was at Winchester -in the spring) must belong the Empress's charter to Thurstan de -Montfort. As it is not comprised in Mr. Birch's collection, I subjoin it -_in extenso_ (from Dugdale's MSS.):— - -"M. Imperatrix H. Regis filia Rogero Comiti de Warwick et omnibus -fidelibus suis Francis et Anglis de Warewicscire salutem. Sciatis me -concessisse Thurstino de Monteforti quod habeat mercatum die dominica ad -castellum suum de Bellodeserto. Volo igitur et firmiter præcipio -quatenus omnes euntes, et stantes, et redeuntes de Mercato prædicto -habeant firmam pacem. T. Milone de Glocestria. Apud Wintoniam." - -As Milo attests not as an earl, this charter cannot belong to the -subsequent visit to Winchester in the summer. The author of the Gesta -mentions the Earl of Warwick among those who joined the Empress at once -"sponte nulloque cogente." - -[205] _Cont. Flor. Wig._, p. 130. - -[206] This he did on the ground that the recognition of Stephen as king -by the pope, in 1136, was binding on all ecclesiastics (_Historia -Pontificalis_). _Vide infra_, p. 69, _n._ 1. - -[207] _Will. Malms._, p. 744. Oddly enough, Miss Norgate gives this very -reference for her statement that in a few days the Archbishop of -Canterbury followed the legate's example, and swore fealty to the -Empress at Wilton. - -[208] "Convenitur ibi ab eadem de principibus unus, vocabulo Robertus de -Oileio, de reddendo Oxenfordensi castello; quo consentiente, venit illa, -totiusque civitatis et circumjacentis regionis suscepit dominium atque -hominium" (_Cont. Flor. Wig._, p. 131). - -[209] "She then made her way to London by a roundabout path. She was -received at Oxford by the younger Robert of Oily," etc. (_Norm. Conq._, -v. 306). - -[210] _English History_, I. 83. - -[211] _Will. Malms._ - -[212] _Cont. Flor. Wig._ - -[213] "Aliis quoque sponte, nulloque cogente, ad comitissæ imperium -conversis (ut Robertus de Oli, civitatis Oxenefordiæ sub rege præceptor, -et comes ille de Warwic, viri molles, et deliciis magis quam animi -fortitudine affluentes)" (p. 74). - -[214] _Cont. Flor. Wig._ (_ut supra_). - -[215] _Journ. B. A. A._, xxxi. 388, 389. It will also be found in the -_Monasticon_ (iii. 87). - -[216] _Journ. B. A. A._, xxxi. p. 379. - -[217] _Addl. MSS._, 31,943, fol. 118. - -[218] _Ang. Sax. Chron._, A.D. 1100. - -[219] Relying on the explicit statement of the chronicler (_Will. -Malms._, p. 732), that the Earl of Gloucester "fratrem etiam suum -Reinaldum in tanta difficultate temporis comitem Cornubiæ creavit," -historians and antiquaries have assigned this creation to 1140 (see -Stubbs' _Const. Hist._, i. 362, _n._; Courthope's _Historic Peerage_; -Doyle's _Official Baronage_). In the version of Reginald's success given -by the author of the _Gesta_, there is no mention of this creation, but -that may, of course, be rejected as merely negative evidence. The above -charter, however, certainly raises the question whether he had indeed -been created earl at the time when he thus attested it. The point may be -deemed of some importance as involving the question whether the Empress -did really create an earl before the triumph of her cause. - -[220] "Concilium archiepiscopi Cantuariæ Thedbaldi, et omnium -episcoporum Angliæ" (p. 744). Strange to say, Professor Pearson (I. 478) -states that "Theobald remained faithful" to Stephen, though he had now -formally joined the Empress. On the other hand, "Stephen's queen and -William of Ypres" are represented by him as present, though they were -far away, preparing for resistance. An important allusion to the -primate's conduct at this time is found (under 1148) in the _Historia -Pontificalis_ (Pertz's _Monumenta Historica_, vol. xx.), where we read -"propter obedienciam sedis apostolicæ proscriptus fuerat, quando urgente -mandato domni Henrici Wintoniensis episcopi tunc legationem fungentis in -Anglia post alios episcopos omnes receperat Imperatricem ... licet -inimicissimos habuerit regem et consiliarios suos." - -[221] "Si qui defuerunt, legatis et literis causas cur non venissent -dederunt.... Egregie quippe memini, ipsâ die, post recitata scripta -excusatoria quibus absentiam suam quidem tutati sunt," etc. (_Will. -Malms._, pp. 744, 745). Is it possible that we have, in "legati," a hint -at attendance by proxy? - -[222] _Ibid._, p. 746. - -[223] _Archæologia_, xxvii. 110. See the charter in question in the -Pipe-Roll Society's "Ancient Charters," Part I., p. 92. - -[224] _Arch. Journ._ (1863), xx. 281-296. - -[225] _Ibid._, p. 283. Mr. Way adopts the extension "Angl_orum_" -throughout. - -[226] "The only instances in which we have documentary evidence that she -styled herself Queen of England occur in two charters of this period" -(_ibid._). - -[227] _Vide supra_, pp. 61, 69. - -[228] Pp. xi.-xiv. (see footnotes). - -[229] The volume closes at p. 769. - -[230] "A Fasciculus of the Charters of Mathildis, Empress of the -Germans, and an Account of her Great Seal" (_Journ. Brit. Arch. Ass._, -xxxi. 376-398). - -[231] "On the Seals of King Henry the Second and of his Son, the -so-called Henry the Third" (_Transactions_, vol. xi. part 2, New -Series). - -[232] Pp. 2, 3. - -[233] _Journ. B. A. A._, xxxi. 383. - -[234] Wells _Liber Albus_, fol. 10 (_Hist. MSS. Report on Wells MSS._). - -[235] _Const. Hist._, i. 326, 341, 342. - -[236] "In Angliæ Normanniæque dominam eligimus." - -[237] _Cont. Flor. Wig._, ii. 75. See Addenda. - -[238] _Ibid._ - -[239] "Pleraque tunc pars Angliæ dominatum ejus suscipiebat" (_Will. -Malms._, p. 749). - -[240] "Ejusdem civitatis sumens dominium ... totiusque civitatis -suscepit dominium," etc. (_Cont. Flor. Wig._). - -[241] _Journ. B. A. A._, xxxi. 382, 383. - -[242] It is very singular that Mr. Freeman failed to perceive this -parallel, since he himself writes of Henry (1100). "The Gemót of -election was held at Winchester while the precedents of three reigns -made it seem matter of necessity that the unction and coronation should -be done at Westminster" (_Will. Rufus_, ii. 348). Such an admission as -this is sufficient to prove my case. - -[243] _Early Plantagenets_, 22. - -[244] _Const. Hist._, i. 339. - -[245] _Norm. Conq._, v. 303, 304. The footnote to this statement -("William of Malmesbury seems distinctly to exclude a coronation," etc., -etc.) has been already given (_ante_, p. 62). Mr. Birch confusing, as we -have seen, the reception of the Empress with her election, naturally -looks, like Mr. Freeman, to the former as the time when she ought to -have been crowned: "The crown of England's sovereigns was handed over to -her, a kind of _seizin_ representing that the kingdom of England was -under the power of her hands (although it does not appear that any -further ceremony connected with the rite of coronation was then -performed)" (_Journ. B. A. A._, xxxi. p. 378). This assumes that the -crown was "handed over to her" at a "ceremony" in the cathedral, -whereas, as I explained, my own view is that she obtained it with the -royal castle. - -[246] _Norm. Conq._, v. p. 305. - -[247] _Gesta_, 79. In the word "inthronizandam," I contend, is to be -found the confirmation of my theory, based on comparison and induction, -of an intended coronation at Westminster. So far as I know, attention -has never been drawn to it before. - - - - - CHAPTER IV. - THE FIRST CHARTER OF THE EMPRESS. - - -Though the election of the Empress, says William of Malmesbury, took -place immediately after Easter, it was nearly midsummer before the -Londoners would receive her.[248] Hence her otherwise strange delay in -proceeding to the scene of her coronation. An incidental allusion leads -us to believe that this _interregnum_ was marked by tumult and bloodshed -in London. We learn that Aubrey de Vere was killed on the 9th of May, in -the course of a riot in the city.[249] This event has been assigned by -every writer that I have consulted to the May of the previous year -(1140), and this is the date assigned in the editor's marginal -note.[250] The context, however, clearly shows that it belongs to 1141. -Aubrey was a man of some consequence. He had been actively employed by -Henry I. in the capacity of justice and of sheriff, and was also a royal -chamberlain. His death, therefore, was a notable event, and one is -tempted to associate with it the fact that he was father-in-law to -Geoffrey. It is not impossible that, on that occasion, they may have -been acting in concert, and resisting a popular movement of the -citizens, whether directed against the Empress or against Geoffrey -himself. - -The comparison of the Empress's advance on London with that of her -grandfather, in similar circumstances, is of course obvious. The -details, however, of the latter are obscure, and Mr. Parker, we must -remember, has gravely impugned the account of it given in the _Norman -Conquest_.[251] - -Of the ten weeks which appear to have elapsed between the election of -the Empress and her reception in London, we know little or nothing. -Early in May she came to Reading,[252] the Continuator's statement to -that effect being confirmed by a charter which, to all appearance, -passed on this occasion.[253] It is attested by her three constant -companions, the Earl of Gloucester, Brian fitz Count, and Miles of -Gloucester (acting as her constable), together with John (fitz Gilbert) -the marshal, and her brothers Reginald (now an earl)[254] and Robert -(fitz Edith).[255] But a special significance is to be found in the -names of the five attesting bishops (Winchester, Lincoln, Ely, St. -David's, and Hereford). They are, it will be found, the same five who -attest the charter to Geoffrey de Mandeville (midsummer), and they are -also the five who (with the Bishop of Bath) had attended, in March, the -Empress at Winchester. This creates a strong presumption that, in -despite of chroniclers' vague assertions, the number of bishops who -joined the Empress was, even if not limited to these, at least extremely -small.[256] - -This is one of the two charters in which the Empress employs the style -"Regina." It is probable that the other also should be assigned to this -period.[257] These two exceptional cases would thus belong to the -interim period during which she was queen elect, though technically only -"domina." Here again the fact that, during this period, she adopted, -alternatively, both styles ("regina" and "domina"), as well as that -which Mr. Birch assigns to his first period, proves how impossible it is -to classify these styles by date. - -If we reject the statement that from Reading she returned to -Oxford,[258] the only other stage in her progress that is named is that -of her reception at St. Albans.[259] In this case also the evidence of a -charter confirms that of the chronicler.[260] At St. Albans she received -a deputation from London, and the terms on which the city agreed to -receive her must have been here finally arranged.[261] She then -proceeded in state to Westminster,[262] no doubt by the Edgware Road, -the old Roman highway, and was probably met by the citizens and their -rulers, according to the custom, at Knightsbridge.[263] - -Meanwhile, she had been joined in her progress by her uncle, the King of -Scots, who had left his realm about the middle of May for the purpose of -attending her coronation.[264] - -The Empress, according to William of Malmesbury, reached London only a -few days before the 24th of June.[265] This is the sole authority we -have for the date of her visit, except the statement by Trivet that she -arrived on the 21st (or 26th) of April.[266] This latter date we may -certainly reject. If we combine the statement that her flight took place -on Midsummer Day[267] with that of the Continuator that her visit lasted -for "some days,"[268] they harmonize fairly enough with that of William -of Malmesbury. If it was, indeed, after a few days that her visit was so -rudely cut short, we are able to understand why she left without the -intended coronation taking place. - -From another and quite independent authority, we obtain the same day -(June 24th) as the date of her flight from London, together with a -welcome and important glimpse of her doings. The would-be Bishop of -Durham, William Cumin, had come south with the King of Scots (whose -chancellor he was), accompanied by certain barons of the bishopric and a -deputation from the cathedral chapter. Nominally, this deputation was to -claim from the Empress and the legate a confirmation of the chapter's -canonical right of free election; but, in fact, it was composed of -William's adherents, who purposed to secure from the Empress and the -legate letters to the chapter in his favour. The legate not having -arrived at court when they reached the Empress, she deferred her reply -till he should join her. In the result, however, the two differed; for, -while the legate, warned from Durham, refused to support William, the -Empress, doubtless influenced by her uncle, had actually agreed, as -sovereign, to give him the ring and staff, and would undoubtedly have -done so, but for the Londoners' revolt.[269] It must be remembered that, -for her own sake, the Empress would welcome every opportunity of -exercising sovereign rights, as in her prompt bestowal of the see of -London upon Robert. And though she lost her chance of actually investing -William, she had granted, before her flight, letters commending him for -election.[270] - -Thus we obtain the date of the charter which is the subject of this -chapter. In this case alone was Mr. Eyton right in the dates he assigned -to these documents. Nor, indeed, is it possible to be mistaken. For this -charter can only have passed on the occasion of this, the only visit -that the Empress paid to Westminster. Yet, even here, Mr. Eyton's date -is not absolutely correct. For he holds that it "passed in the short -period during which Maud was in London, _i.e._ between June 24 and July -25, 1141";[271] whereas "June 24" is the probable date of her departure, -and not of her arrival, which was certainly previous to that day. - -There is but one other document (besides a comparatively insignificant -precept[272]) which can be positively assigned to this visit.[273] This -consideration alone would invest our charter with interest, but when we -add to this its great length, its list of witnesses, and its intrinsic -importance, it may be claimed as one of the most instructive documents -of this obscure and eventful period. - -Of the original, now among the Cottonian Charters (xvi. 27), Mr. Birch, -who is exceptionally qualified to pronounce upon these subjects, has -given us as complete a transcript as it is now possible to obtain.[274] -To this he has appended the following remarks:— - - "This most important charter, one of the earliest, if not the earliest - example of the text of a deed creating a peerage, does not appear to - have been ever published. I cannot find the text in any printed book or - MS. Fortunately Sir William Dugdale inspected this charter before it - had been injured in the disastrous Cottonian fire, which destroyed so - many invaluable evidences of British history. In his account of the - Mandevilles, Earls of Essex (_Baronage_, vol. i. p. 202) he says that - 'this is the most antient creation-charter, which hath ever been known, - _vide_ Selden's _Titles of Honour_, p. 647,' and he gives an English - rendering of the greater portion of the Latin text, which has enabled - me to conjecture several emendations and restorations in the above - transcript." - -Mr. Birch having thus, like preceding antiquaries, borne witness to the -interest attaching to "this most important charter," it is with special -satisfaction that I find myself enabled to print a transcript of the -entire document, supplying, there is every reason to believe, a complete -and accurate text. Nor will it only enable us to restore the portions of -the charter now wanting,[275] for it further convicts the great Dugdale -of no less serious an error than the omission of two most important -witnesses and the garbling of the name of a third.[276] - -The accuracy of my authorities can be tested by collation with those -portions of the original that are still perfect. This test is quite -satisfactory, as is also that of comparing one of the passages they -supply with Camden's transcript of that same passage, taken from the -original charter. Camden's extract, of the existence of which Mr. Birch -was evidently not aware, was printed by him in his _Ordines -Anglicani_,[277] from which it is quoted by Selden in his well-known -_Titles of Honour_.[278] It is further quoted, as from Camden and -Selden, at the head of the Patents of Creation appended to the _Lords' -Reports on the Dignity of a Peer_,[279] as also in the Third Report -itself (where the marginal reference, however, is wrong).[280] It is -specially interesting from Camden's comment: "This is the most ancient -creation-charter that I ever saw" (which is clearly the origin of the -statement as to its unique antiquity), and from the fact of that great -antiquary speaking of it as "now in my hands." - -The two transcripts I have employed for the text (D. and A.) are copies -respectively found in the Dugdale MSS. (L. fol. 81) and the Ashmole MSS. -(841, fol. 3). I have reason to believe that this charter was among -those duly recorded in the missing volume of the Great Coucher. - - CHARTER OF THE EMPRESS TO GEOFFREY DE MANDEVILLE - (Midsummer, 1141). - -M. Imperatrix regis Henrici filia Archiepiscopis Episcopis -►"Archiepiscopis, etc." (D.).◄ Abbatibus (Comitibus Baronibus -Justiciariis Vicecomitibus et ministris et omnibus baronibus et -fidelibus) suis Francis et Anglis totius Angliæ et Normanniæ salutem. -(Sciatis►"Sciant" (D.).◄ omnes tam præsentes quam futuri quod Ego -Matildis regis Henrici filia et Anglor[um]►"or'" (D.); "oru'" (A.).◄ -domina) do et concedo Gaufrido►"Galfrido" (A.).◄ de Magnavillâ (pro -servitio suo et heredibus suis post eum hereditabiliter ut sit comes de -Essex[iâ]►"Essexa" (D.); "Essex'" (A.).◄ et habeat tertium denarium -Vicecomitatus de placitis sicut comes habere debet in comitatu -suo►"comitat' su'" (A.); "comitatu[m] suu[m]" (D.).◄[281] in omnibus -rebus, et præter hoc reddo illi in feodo et hereditate de me et -heredibus meis totam terram quam) tenuit[282] (Gaufridus de Magnavilla -avus suus et Serlo de Matom in Angliâ et Normanniâ ita libere et[282]) -bene et quiete sicut aliquis antecessorum suorum illam unquam melius (et -liberius tenuit, vel ipsemet) postea (aliquo in tempore, sibi dico) et -heredibus suis (post eum), et concedo illi et heredibus suis Custodiam -turris Londonie►"London" (A.); "Londoniæ" (D.).◄ (cum parvo Castello -quod) fuit Ravengeri in feodo et hereditate de me (et heredibus) meis -cum terris et liberationibus et omnibus Consuetudinibus quæ ad (eandem -terram►"terram" (D., A.).◄[283]) pertinerent►"pertinat" (A.); -"pertinent" (D.).◄, et ut inforciet illa secundum voluntatem suam. (Et -similiter[284]) do ei et concedo et heredibus suis C libratas terræ de -me et de (heredibus) meis in dominio, videlicet Niweport►"Newport" -(A.).◄[285] pro tanto quantum reddere solebat die qua rex -H[enricus]►"Henricus rex" (A.).◄ pater meus fuit vivus et mortuus, et ad -rem(ovend') mercatum de Niweport►"Newport" (A.).◄ in Castellum suum de -Waldena cum omnibus Consuetudinibus que prius mercato illi melius -pertinuerunt in (Thelon[eo] et passag[io]►"passagio" (A.).◄[286]) et -aliis consuetudinibus, (et) ut vie de Niweport►"Newport" (A.).◄ quæ sunt -juxta littus aquæ[287] dirigantur ex consuetudine ad Waledenam (sup[er] -foris) facturam meam et Mercatum de Waldenâ sit ad diem dominicam►"dictam" -(A.).◄ et ad diem Jovis et ut feria[288] habeatur apud Waledenam et -incipiat in (Vigiliâ Pentecost►"Vigilia Pentecost" (A.); "vigil' -pentecostes" (D.).◄[289]) et duret per totam hebdomadam pentecostes Et -Meldonam[290] ad perficiendum predictas C libratas terræ pro tanto -quantum►"quanto" (A.); "quantum" (D.).◄ inde reddi solebat die quâ (Rex -Henricus fuit) vivus et mortuus cum omnibus Appendiciis et rebus que -adjacebant in terrâ et mari ad Burgum illud predicto die mortis Regis -Henrici, et (Deopedenam[291]) similiter pro tanto quantum inde reddi -solebat die quâ rex Henricus fuit vivus et mortuus cum omnibus -Appendiciis suis et Boscum de chatelegâ[292] cum (hominibus pro)[293] xx -solidis, et terram de Banhunta[294] pro xl solidis, et si►"et si" in D.; -"et" omitted in A.◄ quid defuerit ad C libratas perficiendas►"perfici -end'" (D.).◄ perficiam ei in loco competenti in Essexa (aut in -Hert)fordescirâ►"Heortfordescira" (D.); "Hertfordscira" (A.).◄ aut in -Cantebriggscirâ tali tenore quod si (reddi)dero Comiti Theobaldo totam -terram quam (tenebat)[295] in An(gliâ dabo Gaufrido►"Gaufrido" (D.); -"Galfrido" (A.).◄ Comiti Essex[ie] escambium suum ad valentiam►"valens" -(D.); "valentiam" (A.).◄ in his prædictis tribus►"his tribus" (A.).◄ -Comitatibus antequam de) predictis terris dissais(iatur; si etiam►"et -etiam" (A.).◄ reddidero totum honorem et totam terram) heredibus -Willelmi peur[elli] de Lond[oniâ][296] dabo similiter ei escambium ad -valens antequam dissaisiatur de illâ quæ fuit peurelli et illud -(escambium erit) de terrâ que remanebit illi hereditabiliter Et preter -hoc do et concedo ei et heredibus suis de me et heredibus meis tenendum -feodum (et servicium) xx militum et infra servicium istorum xx militum -do ei feodum et servicium terre quam Hasculf[us] de tania[297] tenuit in -Angliâ die quâ fuit (vivus et) mortuus, quam tenet Graeleng[us][298] et -mater sua pro tanto servicii quantum de feodo illo debent et totum -superplus istorum xx militum[299] ei perficiam in (prenomina)tis[300] -tribus comitatibus. Et servicium istorum xx militum faciet mihi -separatim preter aliud servicium alterius feodi sui. Et preterea concedo -(illi ut)[300] castella sua que habet stent et ei remaneant (ad) -inforcia(nd[um])►"inforciand'" (A.);"inforciandum" (D.).◄[300] ad -voluntatem suam Et ut ille et omnes homines sui teneant terras (et -tenaturas)►"terras et tent'" (A.).◄ suas omnes de quocunque teneant -sicut tenuerunt die quâ ipse homo meus effectus est salvo servitio -dominorum Et ut ipse et homines sui (sint quieti) de omnibus debitis que -debuerunt regi Henrico aut regi Stephano et ut ipse et omnes homines sui -per totam Angliam sint quieti de Wastis fores(tariis et) assartis que -facta sunt in feodo ipsius Gaufredi►"Gaufridi" (D.); "Galfridi" (A.).◄ -usque ad (diem quo) homo meus devenit Et ut a die illo in antea omnia -illa ess(arta sint amodo excultibilia et arrabilia sine forisfacto et ut -habeat mercatum die Jovis apud Bisseiam[301] et feriam similiter ibidem -quoque anno; et incipiat►"anno incipiat" (A.).◄ vigiliâ Sancti Jacobi et -duret tres dies. Et [preterea]►"preteria" (A.); "præterea" (D.).◄ do et -concedo ei et heredibus suis in feodo et hereditate ad tenendum de me et -heredibus meis vicecomitatum Essex[ie]►"Essex" (A.); "de Essexâ" (D.).◄ -reddendo inde rectam firmam que inde reddi solebat die quâ rex Henricus -pater meus fuit vivus et mortuus, ita quod auferat de summâ -firmâ►"firmæ" (D.); "firma" (A.).◄ vice)comitatus quantum -pertinuerit[302] (ad) Meldonam et Niweport►"Newport" (A.).◄ que ei -(donavi►"donu'" (A.); "donavi" (D.).◄ et) quantum (pertinuerit[303] ad -tertium) denarium de placitis Vicecomitatus unde eum feci Comitem, et ut -teneat omnia excidamenta mea que mihi exciderint (in com)itatu Essexe -reddendo inde firmam rectam quamdiu erunt in Dominio►"Dominica" (D.).◄ -meo Et ut sit capitalis Justicia in Essexâ►"Essexiâ" (A.).◄ -hereditabiliter mea►"meo" (A.).◄ (et hered[um]) meorum de placitis et -forisfactis que pertinuerint ad Coronam meam, ita quod non mittam aliam -Justiciam super eum in Comitatu illo nisi[304] (ita sit quod ali)quando -mittam aliquem de paribus suis qui audiat cum illo quod placita -mea juste tractentur Et ut ipse et omnes homines sui sint (quieti -versus) me et versus heredes meos de omni forisfacto et omni -malivolentiâ►"malevolentia" (A.).◄ preteritâ ante diem quo►"anno et die -quo" (A.); "ante diem" (D.).◄ meus homo devenit Et ei firmiter concedo -et (heredibus suis) quod bene et in pace et libere et sine placito -habeat et[305] teneat hereditabiliter, sicut hæc carta confirmat, omnia -tenementa sua (que ei concessi, in terris) et tenaturis►"tenaturis" -(D.); "tenem'tis" (A.).◄ et in feodis et firmis et Castellis et -libertatibus et in omnibus Conventionibus►"consuetudinibus" (A.).◄ inter -nos factis (sicut aliquis Comes) terre[306] mee melius et quietius et -liberius tenet ad modum Comitis in omnibus rebus ita quod ipse vel -aliquis hominum suorum non (ponantur[307] in ullo►"ponantur ullo" (D.).◄ -modo) in placitum►"placitum" (D.); "placit'" (A.).◄ de aliquo forisfacto -quod fecissent antequam homo meus factus esset, nec pro aliquo -forisfacto quod facturus sit in (antea ponatur in) placit[um] de feodo -vel Castello vel terrâ vel tenurâ quam ei concesserim quamdiu se -defendere potuerit de scelere sive (traditione►"de traditione" (A., -D.).◄) ad corpus meum pertinente per se aut per unum militem si quis -coram venerit qui eum appellare inde voluerit. - -(T[estibus] H[enrico] Ep[iscop]o Winton[ensi]) et A[lexandro] Ep[iscop]o -Lincoln[ensi] et R[oberto] Ep[iscop]o Heref[ordensi] et N[igello] -Ep[iscop]o Ely[ensi] (et B[ernardo] Ep[iscop]o de S[ancto] David et -W[illelmo] Cancellario et Com[ite] R[oberto] de Glocestr[iâ] et Com[ite] -B[aldewino[308]]) et Com[ite] W[illelmo] de Moion et B[riano] fil[io] -Com[itis] (et M[ilone] Glocestr[ie] et R[oberto] Arundell[309]] et -R[oberto] Malet[310] et Rad[ulfo] Lovell[311] et Rad[ulfo] Painell[312]) -et W[alkelino] Maminot[313] et Rob[erto] fil[io] R[egis][314] et -Rob[erto] fil[io] Martin[315] (et Rob[ert]o fil[io] Heldebrand[i][316] -Apud Westmonaster[ium]).[317] - -One cannot but be greatly struck by the names of the witnesses to this -charter. The legate and his four brother prelates, who had been with the -Empress in Winchester, at her reception on March 3, are here with her -again at Westminster. So are her three inseparable companions; but where -are the magnates of England? Two west-country earls, one of them of her -own making,[318] and a few west-country barons virtually complete the -list. I do not say that these were, of necessity, the sole constituents -of her court; but there is certainly the strongest possible presumption -that had she been joined in person by any number of bishops or nobles, -we should not have found so important a charter witnessed merely by the -members of the _entourage_ that she had brought up with her from the -west. We have, for instance, but to compare this list with that of the -witnesses to Stephen's charter six months later.[319] Or, indeed, we may -compare it, to some disadvantage, with that of the Empress herself a -month later at Oxford.[320] Where were the primate and the Bishop of -London? Where was the King of Scots? These questions are difficult to -answer. It may, however, be suggested that the general disgust at her -intolerable arrogance,[321] and her harshness to the king,[322] kept the -magnates from attending her court.[323] Her inability to repel the -queen's forces, and her instant flight before the Londoners, are alike -suggestive of the fact that her followers were comparatively few. - -There are several points of constitutional importance upon which this -instructive charter sheds some welcome light. - -In the first place we should compare it with Stephen's charter (p. 51), -to which, in Mr. Eyton's words, it forms the "counter-patent."[324] In -the former the words of creation are: "Sciatis me fecisse comitem de -Gaufredo," etc. In the charter of the Empress they run thus: "Sciatis -... quod ... do et concedo Gaufredo de Magnavilla ... ut sit Comes," -etc. This contrast is in itself conclusive as to the earldom having been -first _created_ by Stephen and then _recognized_ by the Empress. This -being so, it is the more strange that Mr. Eyton should have arrived at -the contrary conclusion, especially as he noticed the stronger form in -the charter creating the earldom of Hereford ("Sciatis me fecisse -Milonem de Glocestriâ Comitem"), a form corresponding with that in -Stephen's charter to Geoffrey. The earldom of Hereford being _created_ -by the Empress, as that of Essex had been by Stephen, we find the same -formula duly employed by both. The distinction thus established is one -of considerable importance. - -The special grant of the "tertius denarius" is a point of such extreme -interest in its bearing on earls and earldoms that it requires to be -separately discussed in a note devoted to the subject.[325] - -But without dwelling at greater length upon the peerage aspect of this -charter, let us see how it illustrates the ambitious policy pursued in -this struggle by the feudal nobles. Dr. Stubbs writes:— - - "It is possible that the frequent tergiversations which mark the - struggle may have been caused by the desire of obtaining confirmation - of the rank [of earl] from both the competitors for the crown."[326] - -But it is my contention that Geoffrey and his fellows were playing a -deeper game. We find each successive change of side on the part of this -unscrupulous magnate marked by a distinct advance in his demands and in -the price he obtained. Broadly speaking, he was master of the situation, -and he put himself and his fortress up to auction. Thus he obtained from -the impassioned rivals a rapid advance at each bid. Compare, for -instance, this charter with that he had obtained from Stephen, or, -again, compare it with those which are to follow. - -The very length of this charter, as compared with Stephen's, is -significant enough in itself. But its details are far more so. Stephen's -grant had not explicitly included the _tertius denarius_; the Empress -grants him the _tertius denarius_ "sicut comes habere debet in comitatu -suo."[327] But what may be termed the characteristic features are to be -found in such clauses as those dealing with the license to fortify, and -with the grants of lands.[328] These latter, indeed, teem with -information, not only for the local, but for the general historian, as -in the case of Theobald's forfeiture. But their special information is -rather in the light they throw on the nature of these grants, and on the -sources from which the Empress, like her rival, strove to gratify the -greed of these insatiable nobles. - -Foremost among these were those "extravagant grants of Crown lands" -spoken of by Dr. Stubbs and by Gneist.[329] Now, in this charter, and in -those which follow, we are enabled to trace the actual working of this -fatal policy in practice. The Empress begins, in this charter, by -granting Geoffrey, for this is its effect, £100 a year in land ("C -libratas terræ"). Stephen, we shall find, a few months later, regains -him to his side by increasing the bid to £300 a year ("CCC libratas -terræ"). But how is the amount made up? It is charged on the Crown lands -in his own county of Essex. But observe, for this is an important point, -that it is not charged as a lump sum on the entire _corpus comitatus_ -(or, to speak more exactly, on the annual _firma_ of that _corpus_), but -on certain specified estates. Here we have a welcome allusion to the -practice of the early Exchequer. The charter authorizes Geoffrey, as -sheriff, to deduct from the annual ferm of the county, for which he was -responsible at the Exchequer (being that recorded on the _Rotulus -exactorius_), that portion of it represented by the annual rents -(_redditus_) of Maldon and Newport, which, as estates of Crown demesne, -had till then been included in the _corpus_.[330] From the earliest -Pipe-Rolls now remaining we know that the estates so alienated were -usually entered by the sheriff under the head of "_Terræ Datæ_," with -the amount due from each, for which amounts, of course, he claimed -allowance in his account. I think we have here at least a suggestion -that even at the height of the anarchy and of the struggle, the -Exchequer, with all the details of its practice, was recognized as in -full existence. I have never been able to reconcile myself to the -accepted view, as set forth by Dr. Stubbs, of the "stoppage of the -administrative machinery"[331] under Stephen. He holds that on the -arrest of the bishops (June, 1139) "the whole administration of the -country ceased to work," and that Stephen was "never able to restore the -administrative machinery."[332] Crippled and disorganized though it -doubtless was, the Exchequer, I contend, must have preserved its -existence, because its existence was an absolute necessity. Without an -exchequer, the income of the Crown would, obviously, have instantly -disappeared. Moreover, the case of William of Ypres, and others to which -reference will be made below, will go far to establish the important -fact that the Exchequer system remained in force, and that accounts of -some kind must have been kept. - -The next point to which I would call attention is the expression "pro -tanto quantum inde reddi solebat die quâ Rex Henricus fuit vivus et -mortuus," which is applied to Maldon and Newport. The Pipe-Rolls, it -should be remembered, only took cognizance of the total ferm of the -shire. The constituents of that ferm were a matter for the sheriff. At -first sight, therefore, these expressions might seem to cause some -difficulty. Their explanation, however, is this. Just as I have shown in -_Domesday Studies_[333] that the ferm of a town, as in the case of -Huntingdon, was in truth the aggregate of several distinct and separate -ferms, so the ferm of a county must have comprised the separate and -distinct ferms of each of the royal estates. That ferm would be a -customary, that is, fixed, _redditus_ (or, as the charter expresses it, -"quantum inde reddi solebat"). A particularly striking case in point is -afforded by Hatfield Regis (_alias_ Hatfield Broadoak). When Stephen -increased the alienation of Crown demesne to Geoffrey, he granted him -Hatfield _inter alia_ "pro quater xx libris," that is, as representing -£80 a year. This same estate, after the fall of Geoffrey, was alienated -anew to Richard de Luci, and in the early Pipe-Rolls of Henry II. we -read, under "Terræ Datæ" in Essex, "Ricardo de Luci quater xx libræ -numero in Hadfeld." That is to say, in his annual account, the sheriff -claimed to be allowed £80 off the amount of his ferm, in respect of the -alienated estate. Now, the Domesday valuation of this manor is -fortunately very precise: "Tunc Manerium valuit xxxvi libras. Modo lx. -Sed vicecomes recipit inde lxxx libras et c solidos de gersuma" (ii. 2 -b). The Domesday _redditus_ of the manor, therefore, had remained -absolutely unchanged. In such cases of alienation of demesne, it was, -obviously, the object of the grantee that the manor should be valued as -low as possible, while that of the sheriff was precisely the reverse. It -was on this account doubtless, to prevent dispute, that these charters -carefully named the sum at which the manor was to be valued, either in -figures, as in the case of Bonhunt,[334] or, as in that of Maldon and -Newport, in the formula "quantum inde reddi solebat" at the death of -Henry I., this formula probably implying that the earlier ferm had been -forced up in the days of the Lion of Justice. - -The conclusion I would draw from the above argument is that the sheriff -was not at liberty to exact arbitrary sums from the demesne lands of the -Crown. A fixed annual render (_redditus_) was due to him from each, -though this, like the _firma_ of the sheriff himself, was liable to -revision from time to time.[335] - -But it would be difficult to overestimate the importance of evidence -which forms a connecting link between Domesday and the period of the -Pipe-Rolls, especially if it throws some fresh light on the vexed -question of Domesday values. Moreover, we have here an obvious -suggestion as to the purpose of the Conqueror in ascertaining values, at -least so far as concerned the demesne lands of the Crown, for he was -thus enabled to check the sheriffs, by obtaining a basis for calculating -the amount of the _firma comitatus_. With this point we shall have to -deal when we come to Geoffrey's connection with the shrievalty of Essex -and Herts. - -Attention may also be called to the formula of "excambion" (as the -Scottish lawyers term it) here employed, for it would seem to be earlier -than any of those quoted in Madox's _Formularium_. But the suggested -exchange is specially interesting in the case of Count Theobald, because -it gives us an historical fact not elsewhere mentioned, namely, that the -Empress, on obtaining the mastery, forfeited his lands at once. Her -doing so, we should observe, is in strict accordance with the -chroniclers' assertions as to her wholesale forfeitures and her special -hostility to Stephen's house. And we can go further still. We can -ascertain not only that Count Theobald was forfeited, as we have seen, -by the Empress, but also that the land she forfeited had been given him -by Stephen himself. In a document which I have previously referred to, -we read that Stephen had given him the "manor" of Maldon,[336] being -that manor of Crown demesne which the Empress here bestows upon -Geoffrey. - -Another important though difficult subject upon which this charter bears -is that of knight-service. Indeed, considering its early date—a quarter -of a century earlier than the returns contained in the _Liber Niger_—it -may, in conjunction with Stephen's charter of some six months later, be -pronounced to be among our most valuable evidences for what Dr. Stubbs -describes as "a subject on which the greatest obscurity prevails."[337] - -Let us first notice that the Empress grants "feodum et servicium XX -militum," while Stephen grants "LX milites feudatos ... scilicet -servicium" of so and so "pro [LX] militibus." Thus, then, the "milites -feudatos" of Stephen equates the "feodum et servicium ... militum" of -the Empress. And, further, it repeats the remarkable expression employed -by Florence of Worcester when he tells us that the Conqueror instructed -the Domesday Commissioners to ascertain "quot milites feudatos" his -tenants-in-chief possessed, that is to say, how many knights they had -enfeoffed. But the Empress in her charter complicates her grant by -adding the special clause: "Et servicium istorum XX militum faciet mihi -separatim preter aliud servicium alterius feodi sui." Had it not been -for this clause, one might have inferred that the object of the grant -was to transfer, to Earl Geoffrey the "servicium" of these twenty -knights' fees due, of right, to the Crown, so that he might enjoy all -such profits as the Crown would have derived from that "servicium," and, -at the same time, have employed these knights as substitutes for those -which he was bound to furnish, from his own fief, to the Crown. But the -above clause is fatal to such a view. Again, both in the charters of the -Empress and of her rival, these special grants of knights and their -"servicium" are kept entirely distinct from those of Crown demesne or -escheated land, which, moreover, are expressed in terms of the "librata -terræ." On the whole I lean strongly to the belief that, although the -working of the arrangement may be obscure, the object of Geoffrey was to -add to the number of the knights who followed his standard, and thus to -increase his power as a noble and the weight that he could throw into -the scale. And the special clause referred to above would imply that the -Crown was to have a claim on him for twenty knights more than those whom -he was bound to furnish from his own fief. - -Lastly, we may note the identity of the formula employed for the grant -of lands and for that of knights' service. In each case the grant is -made "pro tanto,"[338] and in each case the Empress undertakes to make -good ("perficere") the balance to him within the limit of the three -counties of Essex, Cambridgeshire, and Herts.[339] - -With the subject of castles I propose to deal later on. But there is one -point on which the evidence of this charter is perhaps more important -than on any other, and that is in the retrospective light which it -throws on the system of reform introduced by the first Henry. - -Incidentally, we have here witness to that system, of which the -Pipe-Roll of 1130 is the solitary but vivid exponent, and under which -the very name of "plea" became a terror to all men. Every man was -liable, on the slightest pretext, to be brought within the meshes of the -law, with the object, as it seemed, and at least with the result, of -swelling the royal hoard (cf. pp. 11, 12, _n._ 1). Even to secure one's -simplest rights money had always to be paid. Thus, here, Geoffrey -stipulates that he and his men are to hold their possessions "sine -placito," and "ita quod ... non ponantur in ullo modo in placito de -aliquo forisfacto," etc., etc. So again, in his later charter, we find -him insisting that he and they shall hold all their possessions "sine -placito et sine pecuniæ donatione," and that "Rectum eis teneatur de -eorum calumpniis sine pecuniæ donatione." The exactions he dreaded meet -us at every turn on the Pipe-Roll of 1130. - -But, on the other hand, the charter, broadly speaking, illustrates, by -the retrograde concessions it extorts, the cardinal factor in the long -struggle between the feudal nobles and their lord the king, namely, -their jealousy of that royal jurisdiction by which the Crown strove, and -eventually with success, to break their semi-independent power, and to -bring the whole realm into uniform subjection to the law. - -After the clauses conferring on Geoffrey the _hereditary_ shrievalty of -Essex, a matter which I shall discuss further on, there immediately -follows this passage, the most significant, as I deem it, in the whole -charter:— - - "Et ut sit Capitalis Justicia in Essexiâ hereditabiliter mea et heredum - meorum de placitis et forisfactis que pertinuerint ad coronam meam, ita - quod non mittam aliam justiciam super eum in comitatu illo nisi ita sit - quod aliquando mittam aliquem de paribus suis qui audiat cum illo quod - placita mea juste tractentur." - -The first point to be dealt with here is the phrase "_Capitalis_ -Justicia in Essexiâ." Here we have the term "capitalis" applied to the -_justicia_ of a single county. On this I would lay some stress, for it -has been generally supposed that this style was reserved for the Great -Justiciary, the _alter ego_ of the king himself.[340] - -In his learned observations on the "obscurities" of the style -"_justitia_ or _justitiarius_," Dr. Stubbs writes that "the _capitalis -justitia_ seems to be the only one of the body to whom a determinate -position as the king's representative is assigned in formal documents" -(i. 389). It was probably the object of Geoffrey, when he secured this -particular style, to obtain for himself all the powers vested in "the -king's representative," and so to provide against his supersession by a -justiciar claiming in that capacity. - -Let us now examine the witness of the charter to the differentiation of -the sheriff (_vicecomes_) and the justice (_justitia_), for that is the -development which its terms involve. - -Dr. Stubbs points out that, under the Norman kings, "the authority of -the sheriff, when he was relieved from the company of the ealdorman, ... -would have no check except the direct control of the king" (i. 272); and -Gneist similarly observed that "After the withdrawal of the eorl, the -Anglo-Saxon shir-gerefa became the regular governor of the county, who -was henceforth no longer dependent upon the eorl, but upon the personal -orders of the king, and upon the organs of the Norman central -administration" (i. 140). And for a period of transition between the two -systems, the Anglo-Saxon and the late Norman, the sheriff not only -presided, in his court, as its sole lay head, but also in a dual -capacity. Dr. Stubbs, it is true, with his wonted caution, does but -suggest it as "probable that whilst the sheriff in his character of -sheriff was competent to direct the customary business of the court, it -was in that of _justitia_ that he transacted special business under the -king's writ."[341] But Gneist treats of him, under a separate heading, -in his capacity of "royal justiciary" (i. 142). It is from this dual -position that there developed, by specialization of function, two -distinct officers, the sheriff (_vicecomes_) and the justice -(_justicia_). This is the development which, as yet, has been somewhat -imperfectly apprehended. - -The centralizing policy of Henry I., operating through the _Curia -Regis_, has, I need hardly observe, been admirably explained by Dr. -Stubbs. He has shown how two methods were employed to attain the end in -view: the one, to call up certain pleas from the local courts to the -_curia_; the other, to send down the officers of the _curia_ to sit in -the local courts.[342] In the latter case, the royal officer -("justicia") appeared as the representative of the central power of -which the _Curia Regis_ was the exponent. Thus, there were, again, for -the county court two lay presidents, but they were now the sheriff, as -local authority, and the justice, who represented the central. Such an -arrangement was, of course, a step in advance for the Crown, which had -thus secured for itself, through its justice, a footing in the local -courts.[343] But with this arrangement neither side was able to rest -satisfied. Broadly speaking, if I may be allowed the expression, the -Crown sought to centralize the sheriff, and to exclude the local -element; the feudatories would fain have localized the justice, and so -have excluded the central. Thus, before the close of Henry's reign, he -had actually employed on a large scale the officers of his _curia_ as -sheriffs of counties, and "by these means," as Dr. Stubbs observes, "the -king and justiciar kept in their hands the reins of the entire judicial -administration" (i. 392).[344] The same policy was faithfully followed -by his grandson, a generation later, on the occasion of the inquest of -sheriffs (1170), when, says Dr. Stubbs, "the sheriffs removed from their -offices were most of them local magnates, whose chances of oppression -and whose inclination towards a feudal administration of justice were -too great. In their place Henry instituted officers of the Exchequer, -less closely connected with the counties by property, and more amenable -to royal influence, as well as more skilled administrators—another step -towards the concentration of the provincial jurisdiction under the -_Curia Regis_."[345] - -This passage enables us to see how essentially contrary to the policy of -the Crown were the provisions of Geoffrey's charter. It not only -feudalized the local shrievalty by placing it in the hands of a feudal -magnate, and, further still, making it hereditary, but it seized upon -the centralizing office of justice, and made it as purely local, nay, as -feudal as the other. - -But let us return to the point from which we started, namely, the -witness of Geoffrey's charter to the differentiation of the sheriff and -the justice. It proves that the sheriff could no longer discharge the -functions of "a royal justiciary," without a separate appointment to -that distinct office. When we thus learn how Geoffrey became both -sheriff and justice of Essex, we can approach in the light of that -appointment the writ addressed "Ricardo de Luci Justic' et Vicecomiti de -Essexa," on which Madox relies for Richard's tenure of the post of chief -justiciary.[346] It may be that Richard's appointment corresponded with -that of Geoffrey. But whatever uncertainty there may be on this point, -there can be none on the parallel between Geoffrey's charter and that -which Henry I. granted to the citizens of London. Indeed, in all -municipal charters of the fullest and best type, we find the functions -of the sheriff and the justice dealt with in the same successive order. -The striking thought to be drawn from this is that the feudatories and -the towns, though their interests were opposed _inter se_, presented to -the Crown the same attitude and sought from it the same exemptions. In -proof of this I here adduce three typical charters, arranged in -chronological order. The first is an extract from that important charter -which London obtained from Henry I., the second is taken from Geoffrey's -charter, and the third from that of Richard I. to Colchester, which I -quote because it contains the same word "justicia," and also because it -is, probably, little, if at all, known. - - CHARTER OF HENRY I. TO LONDON. - - "Ipsi cives ponent _vicecomitem_ qualem voluerint de se ipsis, _et - justitiarium_ qualem voluerint de se ipsis ad custodiendum placita - coronæ meæ et eadem placitanda; et nullus alius erit Justitiarius super - ipsos homines Londoniarum." - - CHARTER OF THE EMPRESS TO GEOFFREY. - - "Concedo ei et heredibus suis ... _vicecomitatum_ Essexie. Et ut sit - Capitalis _Justicia_ ... de placitis et forisfactis que pertinuerint ad - coronam meam, ita quod non mittam aliam Justiciam super eum in comitatu - illo," etc. - - CHARTER OF RICHARD I. TO COLCHESTER. - - "Ipsi ponant de se ipsis _Ballivos_ quoscunque voluerint et _Justiciam_ - ad servanda placita Coronæ nostræ et ad placitanda eadem placita infra - Burgum suum et quod nullus alius sit inde Justicia nisi quem - elegerint." - -Here we have the two offices similarly distinct throughout. We have also -the _ballivi_, representing to the town what the _vicecomes_ represents -to the shire, a point which it is necessary to bear in mind. The -"bailiff," so far as the town was concerned, stood in the sheriff's -shoes. So also did the "coroner" (or "coroners") in those of the -justice. Indeed, at Colchester, two "coroners" represented the "justice" -of the charter. I cannot find that Dr. Stubbs calls attention to the -fact of this twin privilege, the fact that exemption from the sheriff -and from the justice went, in these charters, hand in hand. - -Lastly, we should observe that though, in these charters, the clause -relating to the sheriff precedes that which relates to the justice, yet, -conversely, in the enumeration of those to whom a charter is directed, -"justices" are invariably, I believe, given the precedence of -"sheriffs." This, which would seem to have passed unnoticed, may have an -important bearing. Ordericus, in a famous passage (xi. 2) describing -Henry's ministers, tells us how the king - - "favorabiliter illi obsequentes de ignobili stirpe illustravit, de - pulvere, ut ita dicam, extulit, dataque multiplici facultate _super_ - consules et illustres oppidanos exaltavit.... Illos ... rex, cum de - infimo genere essent, nobilitavit, regali auctoritate de imo erexit, in - fastigio potestatum constituit, ipsis etiam spectabilibus regni - principibus formidabiles effecit." - -Observe how vivid a light such a passage as this throws upon the clause -in Geoffrey's charter:— - - "Non mittam aliam Justiciam _super_ eum in Comitatu illo, nisi ita sit - quod aliquando mittam aliquem de paribus suis qui audiat cum illo quod - placita mea juste tractentur." - -The whole clause breathes the very spirit of feudalism. It betrays the -hatred of Geoffrey and his class for those upstarts, as they deemed -them, the royal justices, who, clad in all the authority of the Crown, -intruded themselves into their local courts and checked them in the -exercise of their power. Henceforth, in the courts of the favoured earl, -the representative of the Crown was to make his appearance not -regularly, but only now and then ("aliquando"); moreover, when he came, -he was to figure in court not as the superior ("super eum"), but as the -colleague ("cum illo") of the earl; and, lastly, he was not to belong to -the upstart ministerial class: he was to be one of his own class—of his -"peers" ("de paribus suis"). - -As an illustrative parallel to this clause, I am tempted to quote a -remarkable charter, unnoticed, it would seem, not only by our -historians, but even by Mr. Eyton himself. The Assize of Clarendon, a -quarter of a century (1166) after the date of our charter to Geoffrey, -contained clauses specially aimed against such exemption as he sought. -Referring to these clauses, Dr. Stubbs writes:— - - "No franchise is to exclude the justices.... In the article which - directs the admission of the justices into every franchise may be - detected one sign of the anti-feudal policy which the king had all his - life to maintain."[347] - -But the clauses in question, though their sweeping character fully -justifies this description,[348] contrast strangely with the humble, -almost apologetic, charter in which Henry II., immediately afterwards, -announces that he is only sending his "justicia" into the patrimony of -St. Cuthbert "by permission" of the bishop, and as a quite exceptional -measure, not to be taken again. It throws, perhaps, some new light on -the character and methods of the king, when we find him thus stooping, -in form, to gain his point in fact. - -"Henricus Rex Angl' et Dux Normann' et Aquitan' et Comes Andegav', -justiciariis Vicecomitibus et omnibus ministris suis de Eborac'sir et de -Nordhummerlanda salutem. Sciatis quod consilio Baronum meorum,[349] et -Episcopi Dunelmensis licencia, mitto hac vice in terram sancti Cuthberti -justiciam meam, quæ[350] videat ut fiat justicia secundum assisam meam -de latronibus et murdratoribus et roboratoribus;[351] non quia velim ut -trahatur in consuetudinem tempore meo vel heredum meorum, sed ad tempus -hoc facio, pro prædicta necessitate; quia volo quod terra beati -Cuthberti suas habeat libertates et antiquas consuetudines, sicut unquam -melius habuit. T. Gavfrido Archiepiscopo [_sic_] Cant. Ric. Arch. -Pictav. Comite Gaufrido, Ricardo de Luci. Apud Wodestoc."[352] - -The first charter of the Empress has now been sufficiently discussed. It -was, of course, his possession of the Tower that enabled Geoffrey to -extort such terms, the command of that fortress being essential to the -Empress, to overawe the disaffected citizens. - -[248] "Itaque multæ fuit molis Londoniensium animos permulcere posse, -ut, cum hæc statim post Pascha (ut dixi) fuerint actitata, vix paucis -ante Nativitatem beati Johannis diebus imperatricem reciperent" (p. -748). - -[249] "Galfridus de Mandevilla firmavit Turrim Londoniensem. Idibus Maii -Albericus de Ver Londoniis occiditur" (M. Paris, _Chron. Major._, ii. -174). - -[250] _Ibid._ - -[251] _The Early History of Oxford_, cap. x. - -[252] "Ad Radingum infra Rogationes veniens, suscipitur cum honoribus, -hinc inde principibus cum populis ad ejus imperium convolantibus" -(_Cont. Flor. Wig._, 130). - -[253] _Add. Chart._ (Brit. Mus.), 19,576; _Arch. Journ._, xx. 289; -_Journ. B. A. A._, xxxi. 389. - -[254] "Reginaldo _comite_ filio regis." He had attested, as we have -seen, an Oxford charter (_circ._ March 24) as Reginald "filius regis" -simply. This would seem to fix his creation to _circ._ April, 1141 (see -p. 68). - -[255] "Roberto fratre ejus." - -[256] We obtain incidentally, in another quarter, unique evidence on -this very point. There is printed in the _Cartulary of Ramsey_ (Rolls -Series), vol. ii. p. 254, a precept from Nigel, Bishop of Ely, to -William, Prior of Ely, and others, notifying the agreement he has made -with Walter, Abbot of Ramsey:—"Sciatis me et Walterum Abbatem de -Rameseia consilio et assensu dominæ nostræ Imperatricis et Episcopi -Wynton' Apost' sedis legati aliorumque coepiscoporum meorum scilicet -Linc', Norwycensis, Cestrensis, Hereford', Sancti Davidis, et Roberti -Comitis Gloecestrie, et Hugonis Comitis et Brienni et Milonis ad -voluntatem meam concordatos esse. Quapropter mando et præcipio sicut me -diligitis," etc., etc. This precept, in the printed cartulary, is dated -"1133-1144." These are absurdly wide limits, and a little research -would, surely, have shown that it must belong to the period in which the -Empress was triumphant, and during which the legate was with her. This -fixes it to March-June, 1141. Independent of the great interest -attaching to this document as representing a "concordia" in the court of -the Empress during her brief triumph, it affords in my opinion proof of -the _personnel_ of her court at the time. Five of the seven bishops -mentioned were, as observed in the text, in regular attendance at her -court, and we may therefore, on the strength of this document, add those -of "Chester" and Norwich, as visiting it, at least, on this occasion. So -with the laity. Three of the four magnates named (of whom Miles had not -yet received the earldom of Hereford) were her constant companions, so -that we may safely rely on this evidence for the presence at her court -on this occasion of Hugh, Earl of Norfolk. - -[257] _Journ. B. A. A._, xxxi. 389. Note that in this case Seffrid, -Bishop of Chichester, appears as a witness, doubtless because he had -been Abbot of Glastonbury, to which abbey the charter was granted. - -[258] See above, p. 66. - -[259] "Proficiscitur inde cum exultatione magna et gaudio, et in -monasterio Sancti Albani cum processionali suscipitur honore, et jubilo" -(_Cont. Flor. Wig._, 131). - -[260] "Apud sanctum Albanum" (Duchy of Lancaster: Royal Charters, No. -16; _Journ. B. A. A._, xxxi. 388). - -[261] "Adeunt eam ibi cives multi ex Londoniâ, tractatur ibi sermo -multimodus de reddenda civitate" (_Cont. Flor. Wig._, 131). - -[262] "Imperatrix, ut prædiximus, habito tractatu cum Londoniensibus, -comitantibus secum præsulibus multis et principibus, secura properavit -ad urbem, et apud Westmonasterium cum processionali suscipitur -honorificentiâ." (_ibid._). - -[263] _i.e._ Hyde Park Corner, as it now is. See, for this custom, the -_Chronicles of the Mayors of London_, which record how, a century later -(1257), upon the king approaching Westminster, "exierunt Maior et cives, -_sicut mos est_ ad salutandum ipsum usque ad Kniwtebrigge" (p. 31). The -Continuator (p. 132) alludes to some such reception by the citizens -("cum honore susceperunt"). - -[264] "Videns itaque David rex multa competere in imperatricis neptis -suæ promotionem, post Ascensionem Domini ad eam in Suthangliam profectus -est: ... Venit itaque rex ad neptem suam, plurimosque ex principibus sibi -acquiescentes habuit ut ipsa promoveretur ad totius regni fastigium" -(_Sym. Dun._, ii. 309). As he did not join her till after her election, -I have taken this latter phrase as referring to her coronation (see p. -80). Cf. p. 5, _n._ 5. - -[265] "Vix paucis ante Nativitatem beati Johannis diebus." - -[266] "Cives ... Imperatricem ... favorabiliter susciperunt undecimo -[_al._ Sexto] Kal. Maii." - -[267] See the _Liber de Antiquis Legibus_: "Tandem a Londonensibus -expulsa est in die Sancti Johannis Bapt." So also Trivet. - -[268] "Ibique aliquantis diebus ... resedit" (p. 131). - -[269] "[Legatus] rem exanimans, præscriptam factionem invenit, -fautoribusque ipsius dignâ animadversione interdixit ne Willelmum in -Episcopum nisi canonicâ electione susciperent. Ipsi quoque Willelmo -interdixit omnem ecclesiasticam communionem, si Episcopatum susciperet -nisi Canonice promotus. Actum id in die S. Johannis Baptistæ. Pactus -erat Willelmus ab Imperatrice baculum et annulum recipere; et data hæc -ei essent, nisi, facta a Londoniensibus dissentione, cum omnibus suis -discederet _ipso die_ a Londonia Imperatrix."—Continuatio Historiæ -Turgoti (_Anglia Sacra_, i. 711). This passage further proves (though, -indeed, there is no reason to doubt it) that the legate remained in -London till the actual flight of the Empress. It also illustrates their -discordance. - -[270] "Literas Imperatricis directas ad Capitulum, quarum summa hæc -erat: Quod vellet Ecclesiam nostram de Pastore consultam esse, et -nominatim de illo quem Robertus Archidiaconus nominaret, et quod de illo -vellet, et de alio omnino nollet. Quæsitum est ergo quis hic esset. -Responsum est quod Willelmus" (_ibid._). This has, of course, an -important bearing on the question of episcopal election. Strong though -the terms of her letter appear to have been, the Empress here waives the -right, on which her father and her son insisted, of having the election -conducted in her presence and in her own chapel, and anticipated the -later practice introduced by the charter of John. - -[271] _Add. MSS._, 31,943, fol. 97. So too fol. 115: "After June 24, -1141, when the Empress was received in London; before July 25, when Milo -was created Earl of Hereford." - -[272] Mandate to Sheriff of Essex in favour of William fitz Otto -(_Journ. B. A. A._, xxxi. 387). It is possible that the charter to -Christ Church, London (_ibid._, p. 388), may also belong to this -occasion; but, even if so, it is of no importance. - -[273] A charter to Roger de Valoines. See Appendix G. - -[274] _Journ. B. A. A._, pp. 384-386. - -[275] The portions which are wanting in the charter and which are -supplied from my transcript will be found enclosed in brackets. - -[276] Robert, Earl of Gloucester, and William the chancellor are omitted -altogether, and Ralph _Lovell_ becomes Ralph _de London_. Dugdale has, -of course, misled Mr. Birch. - -[277] Appended (as the "Degrees of England") to Gibson's well-known -edition of the _Britannia_ (1772), vol. i. p. 125. - -[278] Second edition, p. 647. - -[279] Appendix V., p. 1 (ed. 1829). - -[280] Page 164. - -[281] "Ego Matildis filia regis Henrici et Anglorum domina do et concedo -Gaufredo de Magnavilla pro servicio suo et heredibus suis post eum -hereditabiliter ut sit Comes de Essexia, et habeat tertium denarium -Vicecomitatus de placitis sicut Comes habere debet in comitatu suo" -(Camden). - -[282] Mr. Birch reads "tenuit bene," omitting the intervening words. - -[283] Mr. Birch for "eandem terram" (_rectius_ "turrem") conjectures -"illam". - -[284] Mr. Birch conjectures "Preterea." - -[285] Newport (the name hints at a market-town) was ancient demesne of -the Crown. It lay about three miles south-west of (Saffron) Walden. - -[286] There was still a toll bridge there in the last century. For table -of tolls and exemptions, see Morant's _Essex_. - -[287] Apparently, the high road on the left bank, and the way on the -right bank, of the Cam. - -[288] Neither this market nor this fair are, it would seem, to be traced -afterwards. - -[289] Mr. Birch conjectures "vigiliam." - -[290] This was presumably a grant of the borough of Maldon (_i.e._ the -royal rights in that borough), though Peverel's fee in Maldon was an -escheat at the time. The proof of this is not only that it is here -described as a "borough" (_burgus_), but also that its annual value was -to be deducted from the sheriff's ferm, which could only be the case if -it formed part of the _corpus comitatus_, _i.e._ was Crown demesne. In -Domesday, Peverel's fee in Maldon was valued at £12, and the royal manor -at £16 ("ad pondus"), though it had been £24. It was probably the latter -which Henry II. granted to his brother William as representing ("pro") -£22 ("numero") (see Pipe-Rolls). - -[291] Depden, three miles south of Walden. It had formed part, at the -Survey, of the fief of Randulf Peverel. - -[292] Catlidge, according to Morant. - -[293] Mr. Birch conjectures "tenentibus ibidem pro." - -[294] Bonhunt, now part of Wickham Bonhunt, adjoining Newport. It had -been held by Saisselinus at the Survey. In 1485 it was held of the -honour of Lancaster. - -[295] Mr. Birch conjectures "ipse habuit." - -[296] This, apparently, refers to Depden, as forming part of Peverel's -fief, which had been an escheat, in the king's hands, as early as 1130 -(_Rot. Pip._, 31 Hen. I.). - -[297] Hasculf de Tany was ancestor of the Essex family of Tany, of -Stapleford-Tany, Theydon Bois, Elmstead, Great Stambridge, Latton, etc. -He appears repeatedly in the Pipe-Roll of 31 Hen. I. (pp. 53, 56, 58, -60, 99, 152), when he was in litigation with William de Bovill and -Rhiwallon d'Avranches. - -[298] "Graelengus" is proved to be identical with "Graelandus de -Thania," the Essex tenant-in-capite of 1166, by Stephen's second charter -(Christmas, 1141), which gives his holding as 7½ fees, the very amount -at which he returns it in his _Carta_ (see p. 142). But his -contemporary, Graeland "fitz Gilbert" de Tany, on the Pipe-Rolls of -Henry II., was probably so styled for distinction, being a son of -Gilbert de Tany who figures on the Essex Pipe-Roll of 1158. - -[299] Compare the phrase "superplus militum" in _Rot. Pip._ 31 H. I. (p. -47). - -[300] "Predictis;" "ei quod omnia;" "et sint inforciata" (Mr. Birch). - -[301] Bushey in Hertfordshire. Part of Mandeville's Domesday fief. - -[302] Mr. Birch reads "pertinuerunt." - -[303] "Pertinuit"—Mr. Birch's conjecture. - -[304] "Quod aliquando"—Mr. Birch's conjecture. - -[305] Mr. Birch reads "placito hac teneat." - -[306] Mr. Birch reads "tre mee." - -[307] Mr. Birch conjectures "ponantur in (placitum)." - -[308] Mr. Birch conjectures "Baldewino Comite Devonie." - -[309] On Robert Arundell, see Yeatman's _History of the House of -Arundel_, p. 49 (where too early a date is suggested for this charter), -and p. 105 (where it is implied that he was a tenant of the Earl of -Gloucester). He occurs repeatedly in the Pipe-Roll of 31 Hen. I., and -again in the Westminster charters (1136) of Stephen. (See Appendix C.) - -[310] Robert Malet also was a west-country baron. He figures in -connection with Warminster in the Pipe-Roll of 31 Hen. I., and is among -the witnesses to the Westminster charters (1136), being there styled -"Dapifer" (see Appendix C.). The _carta_ of the Abbot of Glastonbury -(1166) proves that he was the predecessor of William Malet, _dapifer_ to -Henry II. - -[311] Another west-country baron. He was one of the rebels of 1138, when -he held Castle Carey against the king (_Hen. Hunt._, p. 261; _Ord. -Vit._, v. 310; _Gesta_, p. 43). According to Mr. Yeatman, he was son of -"William Gouel de Percival, called Lovel," Lord of Ivry (_History of the -House of Arundel_, p. 136). He is however wrongly termed by him "Robert -(_sic_) Lovel" on p. 268. He witnessed an early charter of the Empress -to Glastonbury (_Journ. B. A. A._, xxxi. 390). - -[312] Ralph Paynell had instigated the Earl of Gloucester's raid on -Nottingham the previous September (_Cont. Flor. Wig._, 128), and was one -of the rebels in 1138, when he held Dudley against the king (_ibid._, -110). He was presumably identical with the "Rad[ulfus] Paen[ellus]" of -1130 (_Rot. Pip_, 31 Hen. I.). He witnessed the charter to Roger de -Valoines (see p. 286), and three other charters of the Empress (_Journ. -B. A. A._, xxxi. 391, 395, 398), including the creation of the earldom -of Hereford (25 July, 1141). - -[313] Walchelin Maminot had been among the witnesses to the above -Westminster charters of (Easter) 1136, but had held Dover against the -king in 1138 (_Ord. Vit._, v. 310). when Ordericus (v. 111, 112) speaks -of him as a son-in-law of Robert de Ferrers (Earl of Derby). He -witnessed the charter to Roger de Valoines (see p. 286), and five other -charters of the Empress (_Journ. B. A. A._, xxxi. 388, 391, 394 _bis_, -398), including the creation of the earldom of Hereford (25 July 1141), -and he appears in the Pipe-Rolls and other records under Henry II. from -1155 to 1170. - -[314] Robert, natural son of Henry I. by Edith (afterwards married to -Robert d'Oilli of Oxford), and uterine brother, as Mr. Eyton observes -(_Addl. MSS._, 31,943, fol. 115), "to Henry d'Oilli of Hook-Norton." He -appears in connection with Devonshire in the Pipe-Roll of 31 Hen. I., -and is probably identical with Robert "brother" of Earl Reginald of -Cornwall (_vide ante_, p. 82). He is mentioned as present (as "Robert -fitz Edith") at the siege of Winchester, a few weeks later (_Sym. Dun._, -ii. 310), and he was among the witnesses to the Empress's charters -(Oxford, 1142) to the earls of Oxford and of Essex, and to her charter -(Devizes) to Geoffrey de Mandeville the younger (_vide post_). He -subsequently witnessed Henry II.'s charter (? 1156) to Henry de Oxenford -(_Cart. Ant._ D., No. 42). See also _Liber Niger_. Working from -misleading copies, Mr. Eyton wrongly identifies this Robert "filius -Regis," as a witness to three charters of the Empress, with a Robert -fitz Reg_inald_ (de Dunstanville) (_History of Shropshire_, ii. 271). - -[315] Robert fitz Martin occurs in the Pipe-Roll of 31 Hen. I. in -connection with Dorset. Dugdale and Mr. Eyton (_Addl. MSS._, 31,943, -fol. 90) affiliate him as son of a Martin of Tours, who had established -himself in Wales. He witnessed two other charters of the Empress -(_Journ. B. A. A._, xxxi. 391, 395), both of them at Oxford. A son of -his (filius Roberti filii Martini) held five knights' fees of -Glastonbury Abbey in 1166. - -[316] Robert fitz Hildebrand witnessed the Empress's second charter to -Geoffrey with that to the Earl of Oxford (_vide post_). See for his -adultery, treason, and shocking death (? 1143), _Gesta Stephani_, pp. -95, 96, where he is described as "virum plebeium quidem, sed militari -virtute approbatum." He is also spoken of as "vir infimi generis, sed -summæ semper malitiæ machinator" (_ibid._, p. 93). He is affiliated by -the editors of Ordericus (Société de l'Histoire de France) as "Robert -fils de Herbrand de Sauqueville" (iii. 45, iv. 420), where also we learn -that he had refused to embark upon the White Ship. He was perhaps a -brother of Richard fitz Hildebrand, who held five fees from the Abbot of -Sherborne and five from the Bishop of Salisbury in 1166. - -[317] As the closing names vary somewhat in the two transcripts, I give -both versions:— - - DUGDALE MS. - - "Rad Lond' et Rad' painel et W. Maminot et Rob' fil. R. et Rob' fil. - Martin et Rob' fil Heldebrand' apud Westmonasterium." - - ASHMOLE MS. - - "Rad lovell et Rad Painell et W. Maminot et Roberto filio R. et Roberto - filio Martin Roberto filio _Haidebrandi apud Oxford_." - - The three last words are added in a different hand, and "Oxford" - appears to have been substituted for "Westmr" by yet another hand. - -[318] William de Moiun (Mohun) had attested _eo nomine_ the charter to -Glastonbury (_Journ. B. A. A._, xxxi. 389; _Adam de Domerham_) which -probably passed soon after the election of the Empress (April 8) at -Winchester (see p. 83). He now attests, among the earls, as "_Comite_ -Willelmo de Moion." This fixes his Creation as April-June, 1141. -Courthope gives no date for the creation, and no authority but his -foundation charter to Bruton, in which he styles himself "Comes -Somersetensis." Dr. Stubbs, following him, gives (under "dates and -authorities for the empress's earldoms") no date and no further -authority (_Const. Hist._, i. 362). Mr. Maxwell Lyte, in his learned and -valuable monograph on _Dunster and its Lords_ (1882), quotes the _Gesta -Stephani_ for the fact "that at the siege of Winchester, in 1140, the -empress bestowed on William de Mohun the title of Earl of Dorset" (p. -6). But Winchester was besieged in (August-September) 1141, not in 1140, -and though the writer does speak of "Willelmus de Mohun, quem comitem -ibi statuit Dorsetiæ" (p. 81), this charter proves that he postdates the -creation, as he also does that of Hereford, which he assigns to the same -siege (cf. pp. 125, _n._, 194). Mr. Doyle, with his usual painstaking -care, places the creation (on the same authority) "before September, -1141" (which happens, it will be seen, to be quite correct), and assigns -his use of the above style ("comes Somersetensis") to 1142. See also, on -this point, p. 277 _infra_. - -[319] See p. 143. - -[320] The grant of the earldom of Hereford to Miles of Gloucester. - -[321] "Erecta est autem in superbiam intolerabilem ... et omnium fere -corda a se alienavit" (_Hen. Hunt._, 275). - -[322] "Interpellavit dominam Anglorum regina pro domino suo rege capto -et custodiæ ac vinculis mancipato. Interpellata quoque est pro eadem -causa et a majoribus seu primoribus Angliæ; ... at illa non exaudivit -eos" (_Cont. Flor. Wig._, 132). - -[323] All this, however, is subject to the assumption that this charter -passed at Westminster. That assumption rests on Dugdale's transcript and -his statement to that effect in his _Baronage_. There is nothing in the -charter (except, of course, the above difficulty) inconsistent with this -statement, which is strongly supported by the Valoines charter; but, -unfortunately, the transcript I have quoted from gives _Oxford_ as the -place of testing. But, then, the word (_vide supra_) appears to have -been added in a later hand, and may have been inserted from confusion -with the Empress's _second_ charter to Geoffrey, which did pass at -Oxford. Still, there is no actual reason why this charter may not have -passed at Oxford, though its subject makes Westminster, perhaps, the -more likely place of the two. Personally, I feel no doubt whatever that -Westminster was the place. - -[324] See p. 42. - -[325] See Appendix H: "The Tertius Denarius." - -[326] _Const. Hist._, i. 362. - -[327] This, however, raises the question of comital rights, on which see -pp. 143, 169, 269, and Appendix H. - -[328] Cf. William of Malmesbury: "Hi prædia, hi castella, postremo -quæcunque semel collibuisset, petere non verebantur." - -[329] See also Mr. S. R. Bird's valuable essay on the Crown Lands in -vol. xiii. of the _Antiquary_. He refers (p. 160) to the "extensive -alienations of these lands during the turbulent reign of Stephen, in -order to enable that monarch to endow the new earldoms." - -[330] "Quod auferat de summâ firma vicecomitatus quantum pertinuerit ad -Meldonam et Niweport que ei donavi." - -[331] _Select Charters._ - -[332] _Const. Hist._, i. 326, 327. - -[333] _Domesday Studies_, vol. i. (Longmans), 1887. - -[334] It is in this case alone, in the Empress's charter, that we can -compare the value with that in Domesday. The charter grants it "pro xl -solidis." In Domesday we read "Tunc et post valuit xl solidos. Modo lv" -(ii. 93). - -[335] See an illustration of this principle, some years later, in the -_Chronicle of Ramsey_ (p. 287): "Sciatis me concessisse Abbati de -Rameseia ut ad firmam habeat hundredum de Hyrstintan reddendo inde -quoque anno quatuor marcas argenti, quicunque sit vicecomes ita ne -vicecomes plus ab eo requirat." - -[336] "Die quâ dedi Manerium illud [de Meldonâ] Comiti Theobaldo."— -Westminster Abbey Charters (Madox's _Baronia_, p. 232, note). - -[337] _Const. Hist._, i. 260. See my articles on the "Introduction of -Knight Service into England" in _English Historical Review_, July and -October, 1891, January, 1892. See also Addenda (p. 439). - -[338] The lands were granted "pro tanto quantum inde reddi solebat," and -the knights' service (of Graaland de Tany) "pro tanto servicii quantum -de feodo illo debent," which amount is given in Stephen's charter as 7½ -knights' service (as also in the _Liber Niger_). - -[339] "Et si quid defuerit ad C libratas perficiendas, perficiam ei in -loco competenti in Essexiâ aut in Hertfordescirâ aut in Cantebriggscirâ -... et totum superplus istorum xx. militum ei perficiam in prenominatis -tribus comitatibus." - -[340] Dr. Stubbs writes: "From the reign of Henry I. we have distinct -traces of a judicial system, a supreme court of justice, called the -Curia Regis, presided over by the king or justiciary, and containing -other judges also called justiciars, the chief being occasionally -distinguished by the title of 'summus,' 'magnus,' or 'capitalis'" -(_Const. Hist._, i. 377). But, in another place, he points out, of the -Great Justiciar, Roger of Salisbury, that "several other ministers -receive the same name [_justitiarius_] even during the time at which he -was actually in office; even the title of _capitalis justitiarius_ is -given to officers of the _Curia Regis_ who were acting in subordination -to him" (i. 350). Of this he gives instances in point (i. 389). On the -whole it is safest, perhaps, to hold, as Dr. Stubbs suggested, that the -style "capitalis" was not reserved to the Great Justiciar alone till the -reign of Henry II. (i. 350). - -[341] _Const. Hist._, i. 389, _note_. - -[342] See Appendix I. - -[343] I cannot quite understand Gneist's view that "A better spirit is -infused into this portion of the legal administration by the severance -of the farm-interest (_firma_) from the judicial functions, which was -effected by the appointment of royal _justitiarii_ in the place of the -_vicecomes_. The reservation of the royal right of interference now -develops into a periodical delegation of matters to criminal judges" (i. -180). It is probable that this eminent jurist has a right conception of -the change, and that, if it is obscured, it is only by his mode of -expression. But, when arguing from the laws of Cnut and of Henry, as to -pleas "in firma," he might, if one may venture to say so, have added the -higher evidence of Domesday. There are several passages in the Great -Survey bearing upon this subject, of which the most noteworthy is, I -think, this, which is found in the passage on Shrewsbury:—"Siquis pacem -regis manu propria datam scienter infringebat utlagus fiebat. Qui vero -pacem regis a vicecomite datam infringebat, C solidos emendabat, et -tantundem dabat qui Forestel vel Heinfare faciebat. _Has iii -forisfacturas_ habebat in dominio rex E. in omni Angliâ extra firmas" -(i. 152). - -[344] See Appendix I: "Vicecomites" and "Custodes." - -[345] _Select Charters_, 141. - -[346] Foss's _Judges_, i. 145. - -[347] _Const. Hist._, i. 470. - -[348] "Nulli sint in civitate vel burgo vel castello, vel extra, nec in -honore etiam de Walingeford, qui vetent vicecomites [_sic_] intrare in -terram suam vel socam suam." Strictly speaking, this refers to sheriffs, -but _à fortiori_ it would apply to the king's "justicia." - -[349] The Assize of Clarendon describes itself as passed "de consilio -omnium baronum suorum." - -[350] Notice the "justicia ... quæ videat," as answering to the -"aliquis ... qui audiat" in Geoffrey's charter. - -[351] These are the words of the Assize itself, which deals throughout -with "robatores," "murdratores," and "latrones." - -[352] This charter is limited, by the names of the witnesses, to -1163-1166. It can only, therefore, refer to the Assize of Clarendon, -which conclusion is confirmed by its language. It must consequently have -been granted immediately after it, before the king left England in -March. Observe that the two last witnesses are the very justices who -were entrusted with the execution of the Assize, and that "Earl -Geoffrey," by the irony of fate, was no other than the son and successor -of Geoffrey de Mandeville himself. - - - - - CHAPTER V. - THE LOST CHARTER OF THE QUEEN. - - -It was at the very hour when the Empress seemed to have attained the -height of her triumph that her hopes were dashed to the ground.[353] The -disaster, as is well known, was due to her own behaviour. As Dr. Stubbs -has well observed, "She, too, was on the crest of the wave and had her -little day ... she had not learned wisdom or conciliation, and threw -away opportunities as recklessly as her rival."[354] Indeed, even -William of Malmesbury hints that the fault was hers.[355] - -The Queen, having pleaded in vain for her husband, resolved to appeal to -arms. Advancing on Southwark at the head of the forces which she had -raised from Kent, and probably from Boulogne, she ravaged the lands of -the citizens with fire and sword before their eyes.[356] The citizens, -who had received the Empress but grudgingly, and were already alarmed by -her haughty conduct, were now reduced to desperation. They decided on -rising against their new mistress, and joining the Queen in her struggle -for the restoration of the king.[357] There is a stirring picture in the -_Gesta_ of the sudden sounding of the _tocsin_, and of the citizens -pouring forth from the gates amidst the clanging of the bells. The -Empress was taken so completely by surprise that she seems to have been -at table at the time, and she and her followers, mounting in haste, had -scarcely galloped clear of the suburbs when the mob streamed into her -quarters and rifled them of all that they contained. So great, we are -told, was the panic of the fugitives that they scattered in all -directions, regardless of the Empress and her fate. Although the _Gesta_ -is a hostile source, the evidence of its author is here confirmed by -that of the Continuator of Florence.[358] William of Malmesbury, -however, writing as a partisan, will not allow that the Empress and her -brother were thus ignominiously expelled, but asserts that they withdrew -in military array.[359] - -The Empress herself fled to Oxford, and, afraid to remain even there, -pushed on to Gloucester. The king, it is true, was still her prisoner, -but her followers were almost all dispersed; and the legate, who had -secured her triumph, was alienated already from her cause. Expelled from -the capital, and resisted in arms by no small portion of the kingdom, -her _prestige_ had received a fatal blow, and the moment for her -coronation had passed away, never to return.[360] - -Here we may pause to glance for a moment at a charter of singular -interest for its mention of the citizens of London and their faithful -devotion to the king. - - "Hugo dei gratia Rothomagensis archiepiscopus senatoribus inclitis - civibus honoratis et omnibus commune London concordie gratiam, salutem - eternam. Deo et vobis agimus gratias pro vestra fidelitate stabili et - certa domino nostro regi Stephano jugiter impensa. Inde per regiones - notæ vestra nobilitas virtus et potestas."[361] - -It is tempting to see in this charter—unknown, it would seem, to the -historians of London—a mention of the famous "communa," the "tumor -plebis, timor regni," of 1191. But the term, here, is more probably -employed, as in the "communa liberorum hominum" of the Assize of Arms -(1181), and the "communa totius terre" of the Great Charter (1215). At -the same time, there are two expressions which occur at this very epoch, -and which might support the former view. One is _conjuratio_, which, as -we have seen, the Continuator applies to the action of the Londoners in -1141,[362] and which Richard of Devizes similarly applies to the commune -of 1191.[363] The other is _communio_, which William of Malmesbury -applies to their government in the previous April, and which the keen -eye of Dr. Stubbs noted as "a description of municipal unity which -suggests that the communal idea was already in existence as a basis of -civil organization."[364] But he failed, it would seem, to observe the -passage which follows, and which speaks of "omnes barones, qui in eorum -communionem jamdudum recepti fuerant." For in this allusion we recognize -a distinctive practice of the "sworn commune," from that of Le Mans -(1073),[365] to that of London (1191), "in quam universi regni magnates -et ipsi etiam ipsius provinciæ episcopi jurare coguntur."[366] - -Meanwhile, what of Geoffrey de Mandeville? A tale is told of him by -Dugdale, and accepted without question by Mr. Clark,[367] which, so far -as I can find, must be traced to the following passage in Trivet:— - - "Igitur in die Nativitatis Precursoris Domini [June 24], _obsessâ - turri_, fugatur imperatrix de Londoniâ. Turrim autem Galfridus de - Magnavillâ potenter defendit, et egressu facto, Robertum civitatis - episcopum, partis adversæ fautorem, cepit apud manerium de Fulham."[368] - -It is quite certain that this tale is untrustworthy as it stands. We -have seen above that Trivet's date for the arrival of the Empress at -London is similarly, beyond doubt, erroneous.[369] That the citizens, -when they suddenly rose against the Empress, may also have blockaded -Geoffrey in his tower, not only as her ally, but as their own natural -enemy, is possible, nay, even probable. But that he ventured forth, -through their ranks, to Fulham, when thus blockaded, is improbable, and -that he captured the bishop as an enemy of the Empress is impossible, -for the Empress herself had just installed him,[370] and we find him at -her court a month later.[371] At the same time Trivet, we must assume, -cannot have invented all this. His story must preserve a confused -version of the facts as told in some chronicle now lost, or, at least, -unknown.[372] On this assumption it may, perhaps, be suggested that -Geoffrey was indeed blockaded in the Tower, but that when he accepted -the Queen's offers, and thus made, as we shall see, common cause with -the citizens, he signalized his defection from the cause of the Empress -by seizing her adherent the bishop,[373] and holding him a prisoner -till, as Holinshed implies, he purchased his freedom, and so became free -to join the Empress at Oxford.[374] - -And now let us come to the subject of this chapter, the lost charter of -the Queen. - -That this charter was granted is an historical fact hitherto absolutely -unknown. No chronicler mentions the fact, nor is there a trace of any -such document, or even of a transcript of its contents. And yet the -existence of this charter, like that of the planet Neptune, can be -established, in the words of Sir John Herschel, "with a certainty hardly -inferior to ocular demonstration." The discovery, indeed, of that planet -was effected (_magnis componere parva_) by strangely similar means. For -as the perturbations of Uranus pointed to the existence of Neptune, so -the "perturbations" of Geoffrey de Mandeville point to the existence of -this charter. - -We know that the departure of the Empress was followed by the arrival of -the Queen, with the result that Geoffrey was again in a position to -demand his own terms. Had he continued to hold the Tower in the name of -the Empress, he would have made it a thorn in the side of the citizens -now that they had declared for her rival. We hear, moreover, at this -crisis, of offers by the Queen to all those whom bribes or concessions -could allure to her side.[375] We have, therefore, the strongest -presumption that Geoffrey would be among the first to whom offers were -made. But it is not on presumption that we depend. Stephen, we shall -find, six months later, refers distinctly to this lost charter ("Carta -Reginæ"),[376] and the Empress in turn, in the following year, refers to -the charters of the king _and of the queen_ ("quas Rex Stephanus -_et Matildis regina_ ei dederunt ... sicut habet inde cartas -ill_orum_").[377] Thus its existence is beyond question. And that it -passed about this time may be inferred, not only from the circumstances -of the case, but also from the most significant fact that, a few weeks -later, at the siege of Winchester, we find Geoffrey supporting the Queen -in active concert with the citizens.[378] - -What were the terms of the charter by which he was thus regained to his -allegiance we cannot now tell. To judge, however, from that of Stephen, -which was mainly a confirmation of its terms, it probably represented a -distinct advance on the concessions he had wrung from the Empress. - -It is an interesting fact, and one which probably is known to few, if -any, that there is still preserved in the Public Record Office a -solitary charter of the Queen, granted, I cannot but think, at this very -crisis. As it is not long, I shall here quote it as a unique and -instructive record. - - "M. Regina Angl[ie] Omnibus fidelibus suis francis et Anglis salutem. - Sciatis quod dedi Gervasio Justiciario de Lond[oniâ] x marcatas terræ - in villâ de Gamelingeia pro servicio suo ... donec ei persolvam debitum - quod ei debeo, ut infra illum terminum habeat proficua que exibunt de - villa predictâ ... testibus Com[ite] Sim[one] et Ric[ardo] de Bolon[iâ] - et Sim[one] de Gerardmot[a] et Warn[erio] de Lisor[iis]. apud - Lond[oniam].[379] - -The first of the witnesses, Earl Simon (of Northampton), is known to -have been one of the three earls who adhered to the Queen during the -king's captivity.[380] Richard of Boulogne was possibly a brother of her -_nepos_, "Pharamus" of Boulogne, who is also known to have been with -her.[381] Combining the fact of the charter being the Queen's with that -of its subject-matter and that of its place of testing, we obtain the -strongest possible presumption that it passed at this crisis, a -presumption confirmed, as we have seen, by the name of the leading -witness. The endeavour to fix the date of this charter is well worth the -making. For it is not merely of interest as a record unique of its kind. -If it is, indeed, of the date suggested, it is, to all appearance, the -sole survivor of all those charters, such as that to Geoffrey, by which -the Queen, in her hour of need, must have purchased support for the -royal cause. We see her, like the queen of Henry III., like the queen of -Charles I., straining every nerve to succour her husband, and to raise -men and means. And as Henrietta Maria pledged her jewels as security for -the loans she raised, so Matilda is here shown as pledging a portion of -her ancestral "honour" to raise the sinews of war.[382] - -But this charter, if the date I have assigned to it be right, does more -for us than this. It gives us, for an instant, a precious glimpse of -that of which we know so little, and would fain know so much—I mean the -government of London. We learn from it that London had then a -"justiciary," and further that his name was Gervase. Nor is even this -all. The Gamlingay entry in the _Testa de Nevill_ and _Liber Niger_ -enables us to advance a step further and to establish the identity of -this Gervase with no other than Gervase of Cornhill.[383] The importance -of this identification will be shown in a special appendix.[384] - -Among those whom the Queen strove hard to gain was her husband's -brother, the legate.[385] He had headed, as we have seen, the witnesses -to Geoffrey's charter, but he was deeply injured at the failure of his -appeal, on behalf of his family, to the Empress, and was even thought to -have secretly encouraged the rising of the citizens of London.[386] He -now kept aloof from the court of the Empress, and, having held an -interview with the Queen at Guildford, resolved to devote himself, heart -and soul, to setting his brother free.[387] - -[353] "Ecce, dum ipsa putaretur omni Anglia statim posse potiri, mutata -omnia" (_Will. Malms._, p. 749). - -[354] _Early Plantagenets_, p. 22; _Const. Hist._, i. 330. - -[355] "Satisque constat quod si ejus (_i.e._ comitis) moderationi et -sapientiæ a suis esset creditum, non tam sinistrum postea sensissent -aleæ casum" (p. 749). - -[356] "Regina quod prece non valuit, armis impetrare confidens, -splendidissimum militantium decus ante Londonias, ex alterâ fluvii -regione, transmisit, utque raptu, et incendio, violentiâ, et gladio, in -comitissæ suorumque prospectu, ardentissime circa civitatem desævirent -præcepit" (_Gesta Stephani_, p. 78). These expressions appear to imply -that she not only wasted the southern bank, but sent over (_transmisit_) -her troops to plunder round the walls of the city itself (_circa -civitatem_). Mr. Pearson strangely assigns this action not to the Queen, -but to the Empress: "Matilda brought up troops, and cut off the trade of -the citizens, and wasted their lands, to punish their disaffection" (p. -478). - -[357] The _Annals of Plympton_ (ed. Liebermann, p. 20) imply that the -city was divided on the subject:—"In mense Junio facta est sedicio in -civitate Londoniensi a civibus; sed tamen pars sanior vices imperatricis -agebat, pars vero quedam eam obpugnabat." - -[358] "Facta conjuratione adversus eam quam cum honore susceperunt, cum -dedecore apprehendere statuerunt. At illa a quodam civium præmunita, -ignominiosam cum suis fugam arripuit omni sua suorumque supellectili -post tergum relicta." - -[359] "Sensim sine tumultu quadam militari disciplina urbe cesserunt." -This is clearly intended to rebut the story of their hurried flight (see -also p. 132, _infra_). - -[360] See Appendix J: "The Great Seal of the Empress." - -[361] _Harl. MS._ 1708, fo. 113. - -[362] "Conjuratione facta." - -[363] "In indulta sibi conjuratione ... quanta quippe mala ex -conjuratione proveniunt" (ed. Howlett, p. 416). - -[364] _Const. Hist._, i. 407. - -[365] "Facta conspiratione quam _communionem_ vocabant sese omnes -pariter sacramentis adstringunt, et ... ejusdem regionis proceres -quamvis invitos, sacramentis suæ conspirationis obligari compellunt." - -[366] _Richard of Devizes_ (ed. Howlett, p. 416). - -[367] _Mediæval Military Architecture_, ii. 254. - -[368] Trivet's _Annals_ (Eng. Hist. Soc., p. 13). - -[369] See p. 84. - -[370] "Primo quidem [apud Westmonasterium] quod decuit, sanctæ Dei -Ecclesiæ, juxta bonorum consilium, consulere procuravit. Dedit itaque -Lundoniensis ecclesiæ præsulatum cuidam Radingensi monacho viro -venerabili præsente et jubente reverendo abbate suo Edwardo" (_Cont. -Flor. Wig._, 131). - -[371] See p. 123. - -[372] We have, indeed, a glimpse of this incident in the _Liber de -Antiquis Legibus_ (fol. 35), where we read: "Anno predicto, statim in -illa estate, _obsessa est Turris Londoniarum a Londoniensibus_, quam -Willielmus (_sic_) de Magnavilla tenebat et firmaverat." - -[373] The city, it must be remembered, lay between him and Fulham, so -that, obviously, he is more likely to have made this raid when the city -was no longer in arms against him. - -[374] We have a hint that the bishop was disliked by the citizens in the -_Historia Pontificalis_ (p. 532), where we learn (in 1148) that they had -disobeyed the papal authority: "Quando episcopus bone memorie Robertus -expulsus est, cui hanc exhibuere devocionem ut omni diligentia -procurarent ne patri exulanti in aliquo prodessent." - -[375] "Regina autem a Londoniensibus suscepta, sexusque fragilitatis, -femineæque mollitiei oblita, viriliter sese et virtuose continere; -invictos ubique coadjutores prece sibi et pretio allicere, regis -conjuratos ubi ubi per Angliam fuerant dispersi ad dominum suum secum -reposcendum constanter sollicitare" (_Gesta Stephani_, 80). "Regina -omnibus supplicavit, omnes pro ereptione mariti sui precibus, promissis, -et obsequiis sollicitavit" (_Sym. Dun._, ii. 310). - -[376] See p. 143. - -[377] See p. 167. - -[378] "Gaufrido de Mandevillâ (_qui jam iterum auxilio eorum cesserat_, -antea enim post captionem regis imperatrici fidelitatem juraverat) et -Londoniensibus maxime annitentibus, nihilque omnino quod possent -prætermittentibus quo imperatricem contristarent" (_Will. Malms._, p. -752). - -[379] _Royal Charters_ (Duchy of Lancaster), No. 22. N.B.—The above is -merely an extract from the charter. - -[380] Waleran of Meulan, William of Warrenne, and Simon of Northampton -(_Ord. Vit._, v. 130). - -[381] See p. 147. - -[382] Gamlingay, in Cambridgeshire, had come to the Queen as belonging -to "the honour of Boulogne." - -[383] "Gamenegheia valet xxx _li._ Inde tenent ... heredes Gervas[ii] de -Cornhill x _li._" (_Liber Niger_, 395; _Testa_, pp. 274, 275). This -entry also proves that the loan (1141?) to the Queen was not repaid, and -the property, therefore, not redeemed. - -[384] See Appendix K: "Gervase de Cornhill." - -[385] "Nunc quidem Wintoniensem episcopum, totius Angliæ legatum, ut -fraternis compatiens vinculis ad eum liberandum intenderet, ut sibi -maritum, plebi regem, regno patronum, toto secum nisu adquireret, -viriliter supplicare" (_Gesta_, 80). - -[386] _Gesta_, 79. - -[387] _Will. Malms._, p. 750; _Cont. Flor. Wig._, 132; _Gesta_, 80; -_Annals of Winchester_. - - - - - CHAPTER VI. - THE ROUT OF WINCHESTER. - - -The Empress, it will be remembered, in the panic of her escape, on the -sudden revolt of the citizens, had fled to the strongholds of her cause -in the west, and sought refuge in Gloucester. Most of her followers were -scattered abroad, but the faithful Miles of Gloucester was found, as -ever, by her side. As soon as she recovered from her first alarm, she -retraced her steps to Oxford, acting upon his advice, and made that -fortress her head-quarters, to which her adherents might rally.[388] - -To her stay at Oxford on this occasion we may assign a charter to -Haughmond Abbey, tested _inter alios_ by the King of Scots.[389] But of -far more importance is the well-known charter by which she granted the -earldom of Hereford to her devoted follower, Miles of Gloucester.[390] -With singular unanimity, the rival chroniclers testify to the faithful -service of which this grant was the reward.[391] It is an important fact -that this charter contains a record of its date, which makes it a fixed -point of great value for our story. This circumstance is the more -welcome from the long list of witnesses, which enables us to give with -absolute certainty the _personnel_ of Matilda's court on the day this -charter passed (July 25, 1141), evidence confirmed by another charter -omitted from the fasciculus of Mr. Birch.[392] From a comparison of the -dates we can assign these documents to the very close of her stay at -Oxford, by which time her scattered followers had again rallied to her -standard. It is also noteworthy that the date is in harmony with the -narrative of the Continuator of Florence. This has a bearing on the -chronology of that writer, to which we have now in the main to trust. - -William of Malmesbury, who on the doings of his patron is likely to be -well informed, tells us that the rumours of the legate's defection led -the Earl of Gloucester to visit Winchester in the hope of regaining him -to his sister's cause. Disappointed in this, he rejoined her at -Oxford.[393] It must have been on his return that he witnessed the -charter to Miles of Gloucester. - -The Empress, on hearing her brother's report, decided to march on -Winchester with the forces she had now assembled.[394] The names of her -leading followers can be recovered from the various accounts of the -siege.[395] - -The Continuator states that she reached Winchester shortly before the -1st of August.[396] He also speaks of the siege having lasted seven -weeks on the 13th of September.[397] If he means by this, as he implies, -the siege by the queen's forces, he is clearly wrong; but if he was -thinking of the arrival of the Empress, this would place that event not -later than the 27th of July. We know from the date of the Oxford charter -that it cannot well have been earlier. The _Hyde Cartulary_ (Stowe MSS.) -is more exact, and, indeed, gives us the day of her arrival, Thursday, -July 31 ("pridie kal. Augusti"). According to the _Annals of Waverley_, -the Empress besieged the bishop the next day.[398] - -Of the struggle which now took place we have several independent -accounts. Of these the fullest are those given by the Continuator, who -here writes with a bitter feeling against the legate, and by the author -of the _Gesta_, whose sympathies were, of course, on the other side. -John of Hexham, William of Malmesbury, and Henry of Huntingdon have -accounts which should be carefully consulted, and some information is -also to be gleaned from the _Hyde Cartulary_ (Stowe MSS.). - -It is John of Hexham alone who mentions that the bishop himself had -commenced operations by besieging the royal castle, which was held by a -garrison of the Empress.[399] It was in this castle, says the -Continuator, that she took up her quarters on her arrival.[400] She at -once summoned the legate to her presence, but he, dreading that she -would seize his person, returned a temporizing answer, and eventually -rode forth from the city (it would seem, by the east gate) just as the -Empress entered it in state.[401] - -Though the Continuator asserts that the Empress, on her arrival, found -the city opposed to her, William of Malmesbury, whose sympathies were -the same, asserts, on the contrary, that the citizens were for her.[402] -Possibly, the former may only have meant that she had found the gates of -the city closed against her by the legate. In any case, she now -established herself, together with her followers, within the walls, and -laid siege to the episcopal palace, which was defended by the legate's -garrison.[403] The usual consequence followed. From the summit of the -keep its reckless defenders rained down fire upon the town, and a -monastery, a nunnery, more than forty (?) churches, and the greater part -of the houses within the walls are said to have been reduced to -ashes.[404] - -Meanwhile, the legate had summoned to his aid the Queen and all the -royal party. His summons "was promptly obeyed;[405] even the Earl of -Chester, "who," says Dr. Stubbs, "was uniformly opposed to Stephen, but -who no doubt fought for himself far more than for the Empress,"[406] -joined, on this occasion, the royal forces, perhaps to maintain the -balance of power. But his assistance, naturally enough, was viewed with -such deep suspicion that he soon went over to the Empress,[407] to whom, -however, his tardy help was of little or no value.[408] From London the -Queen received a well-armed contingent, nearly a thousand strong;[409] -but Henry of Huntingdon appears to imply that their arrival, although it -turned the scale, did not take place till late in the siege.[410] - -The position of the opposing forces became a very strange one. The -Empress and her followers, from the castle, besieged the bishop's -palace, and were in turn themselves besieged by the Queen and her host -without.[411] It was the aim of the latter to cut off the Empress from -her base of operations in the west. With this object they burnt -Andover,[412] and harassed so successfully the enemy's convoys, that -famine was imminent in the city.[413] The Empress, moreover, was clearly -outnumbered by the forces of the Queen and legate. It is agreed on all -hands that the actual crisis was connected with an affair at Wherwell, -but John of Hexham and the author of the _Gesta_ are not entirely in -accord as to the details. According to the latter, who can hardly be -mistaken in a statement so precise, the besieged, now in dire straits, -despatched a small force along the old Icknield Way, to fortify Wherwell -and its nunnery, commanding the passage of the Test, in order to secure -their line of communication.[414] John of Hexham, on the contrary, -describing, it would seem, the same incident, represents it as merely -the despatch of an escort, under John the Marshal and Robert fitz Edith, -to meet an expected convoy.[415] In any case, it is clear that William -of Ypres, probably the Queen's best soldier, burst upon the convoy close -to Wherwell, and slew or captured all but those who sought refuge within -the nunnery walls.[416] Nor are the two accounts gravely inconsistent. - -On the other hand, the Continuator of Florence appears at first sight to -imply that the Marshal and his followers took refuge at Wherwell in the -course of the general flight,[417] and this version is in harmony with -the _Histoire de Guillaume le Maréchal_.[418] But putting aside William -of Malmesbury, whose testimony is ambiguous on the point, I consider the -balance to be clearly in favour of the _Gesta_ and John of Hexham, whose -detailed accounts must be wholly rejected if we embrace the other -version, whereas the Continuator's words can be harmonized, and indeed -better understood, if we take "ad monasterium Warewellense fugientem" as -referring to John taking refuge in the nunnery (as described in the -other versions) when surprised with his convoy. Moreover, the evidence -(_vide infra_) as to the Empress leaving Winchester by the west instead -of the north gate, appears to me to clinch the matter. As to the Marshal -poem, on such a point its evidence is of little weight. Composed at a -later period, and based on family tradition, its incidents, as M. Meyer -has shown, are thrown together in wrong order, and its obvious errors -not a few. I may add that the Marshal's position is unduly exalted in -the poem, and that Brian fitz Count (though it is true that he -accompanied the Empress in her flight) would never have taken his orders -from John the Marshal.[419] Its narrative cannot be explained away, but -it is the one that we are most justified in selecting for rejection. - -To expel the fugitives from their place of safety, William and his -troopers fired the nunnery. A furious struggle followed in the church, -amidst the shrieks of the nuns and the roar of the flames; the sanctuary -itself streamed with blood; but John the Marshal stood his ground, and -refused to surrender to his foes.[420] "Silence, or I will slay thee -with mine own hands," the undaunted man is said to have exclaimed, as -his last remaining comrade implored him to save their lives.[421] - -On receiving intelligence of this disaster, the besieged were seized -with panic, and resolved on immediate retreat.[422] William of -Malmesbury, as before, is anxious to deny the panic,[423] and the -Continuator accuses the legate of treachery.[424] The account, however, -in the _Gesta_ appears thoroughly trustworthy. According to this, the -Empress and her forces sallied forth from the gates in good order, but -were quickly surrounded and put to flight. All order was soon at an end. -Bishops, nobles, barons, troopers, fled in headlong rout. With her -faithful squire by her side the Empress rode for her life.[425] The Earl -of Gloucester, with the rear-guard, covered his sister's retreat, but in -so doing was himself made prisoner, while holding, at Stockbridge, the -passage of the Test.[426] - -The mention of Stockbridge proves that the besieged must have fled by -the Salisbury road, their line of retreat by Andover being now barred at -Wherwell. After crossing the Test, the fugitive Empress must have turned -northwards, and made her way, by country lanes, over Longstock hills, to -Ludgershall. So great was the dread of her victorious foes, now in full -pursuit, that though she had ridden more than twenty miles, and was -overwhelmed with anxiety and fatigue, she was unable to rest even here, -and, remounting, rode for Devizes, across the Wiltshire downs.[427] It -was not, we should notice, thought safe for her to make straight for -Gloucester, through Marlborough and Cirencester; so she again set her -face due west, as if making for Bristol. Thus fleeing from fortress to -fortress, she came to her castle at Devizes. So great, however, was now -her terror that even in this celebrated stronghold[428] she would not, -she feared, be safe. She had already ridden some forty miles, mainly -over bad country, and what with grief, terror, and fatigue, the erst -haughty Empress was now "more dead than alive" (_pene exanimis_). It was -out of the question that she should mount again; a litter was hurriedly -slung between two horses, and, strapped to this, the unfortunate Lady -was conveyed in sorry guise (_sat ignominiose_) to her faithful city of -Gloucester.[429] - -On a misunderstanding, as I deem it, of the passage (and especially of -the word _feretrum_), writers have successively, for three centuries, -represented the Continuator as stating that the Empress, "to elude the -vigilance of her pursuers," was "laid out as a corpse!" Lingard, indeed, -while following suit, gravely doubts if the fact be true, as it is -recorded by the Continuator alone; but Professor Pearson improves upon -the story, and holds that the versatile "Lady" was in turn "a trooper" -and a corpse.[430] - -On the 1st of November the king was released, and a few days later the -Earl of Gloucester, for whom he had been exchanged, reached -Bristol.[431] Shortly after, it would seem, there were assembled -together at Bristol, the Earl, the Empress, and their loyal adherents, -Miles, now Earl of Hereford, Brian fitz Count, and Robert fitz -Martin.[432] - -[388] "Porro fugiens domina per Oxenefordiam venit ad Glavorniam, ubi -cum Milone ex-constabulario consilio inito statim cum eodem ad -Oxenefordensem revertitur urbem, ibi præstolatura seu recuperatura suum -dispersum militarem numerum" (_Cont. Flor. Wig._, 132). - -[389] The other witnesses were Robert, Bishop of London, Alexander, -Bishop of Lincoln, William the chancellor, R[ichard] de Belmeis, -archdeacon, G[ilbert?], archdeacon, Reginald, Earl of Cornwall, William -Fitz Alan and Walter his brother, Alan de Dunstanville (_Harl. MS._, -2188, fol. 123). The two bishops and the King of Scots also witnessed -the charter to Miles. - -[390] _Fœdera_, N.E., i. 14. - -[391] "Et quia ejusdem Milonis præcipue fruebatur consilio et fovebatur -auxilio, utpote quæ eatenus nec unius diei victum nec mensæ ipsius -apparatum aliunde quam ex ipsius munificentiâ sive providentiâ acceperat -sicut ex ipsius Milonis ore audivimus, ut eum suo arctius vinciret -ministerio, comitatum ei Herefordensem tunc ibi posita pro magnæ -remunerationis contulit præmio" (_Cont. Flor. Wig._, 133). Comp. -_Gesta_, 81: "Milo Glaornensis, quem ibi cum gratiâ et favore omnium -comitem præfecit Herefordiæ." - -[392] See Appendix L: "Charter of the Empress to William de Beauchamp." - -[393] "Ad hos motus, si possit, componendos comes Gloecestrensis non -adeo denso comitatu Wintoniam contendit; sed, re infecta, ad Oxeneford -rediit, ubi soror stativâ mansione jamdudum se continuerat" (p. 751). -The "jamdudum" should be noticed, as a hint towards the chronology. - -[394] "Ipsa itaque, et ex his quæ continue audiebat et a fratre tunc -cognovit nihil legatum molle ad suas partes cogitare intelligens, -Wintoniam cum quanto potuit apparatu venit" (_ibid._). - -[395] They were her uncle, the King of Scots;* her three brothers, the -Earls of Gloucester* and of Cornwall,* and Robert fitz Edith; the Earls -of Warwick and Devon ("Exeter"), with their newly created fellows, the -Earls of Dorset (or Somerset) and Hereford; Humphrey de Bohun,* John the -Marshal,* Brien fitz Count,* Geoffrey Boterel (his relative), William -fitz Alan, "William" of Salisbury, Roger d'Oilli, Roger "de Nunant," -etc. The primate* was also of the company. N.B.—Those marked with an -asterisk attested the above charter to Miles de Gloucester. - -[396] "Inde [_i.e._ from Oxford] jam militum virtute roborata et numero, -appropinquante festivitate Sancti Petri, quæ dicitur ad Vincula" [August -1] (_Cont. Flor. Wig._, 133). - -[397] "Septem igitur septimanis in obsidione transactis" (_ibid._). - -[398] "Die kalendarum Augusti" (_Ann. Mon._, ii. 229). - -[399] "Imperatrix, collectis viribus suis, cum rege Scotiæ et Rodberto -comite ascendit in Wintoniam, audiens milites suos inclusos in regia -munitione expugnari a militibus legati qui erant in mœnibus illius" -(_Sym. Dun._, ii. 310). - -[400] "Ignorante fratre suo, comite Bricstowensi (_i.e._ Earl Robert), -Wintoniensem venit ad urbem, sed eam a se jam alienatam inveniens, in -castello suscepit hospitium" (p. 133). It seems impossible to understand -what can be meant by the expression "ignorante fratre suo." So too -_Will. Malms._: "intra castellum regium sine cunctatione recepta." - -[401] _Will. Malms._, p. 751; _Gesta_, p. 80; _Cont. Flor. Wig._, 133. -The _Gesta_ alone represents the Empress as hoping to surprise the -legate, which is scarcely probable. - -[402] "Wintonienses porro vel tacito ei favebant judicio, memores fidei -quam ei pacti fuerant cum inviti propemodum ab episcopo ad hoc adacti -essent" (p. 752). - -[403] There is some confusion as to what the Empress actually besieged. -The _Gesta_ says it was "(1) castellum episcopi, quod venustissimo -constructum schemate in civitatis medio locarat, sed et (2) domum -illius, quam ad instar castelli fortiter et inexpugnabiliter firmarat." -We learn from the _Annals of Winchester_ (p. 51) that, in 1138, the -bishop "fecit ædificare domum quasi palatium cum turri fortissima in -Wintonia," which would seem to be Wolvesey, with its keep, at the -south-east angle of the city. Again, Giraldus has a story (vii. 46) that -the bishop built himself a residence from the materials of the -Conqueror's palace: "Domos regios apud Wintoniam ecclesie ipsius atrio -nimis enormiter imminentes, ... funditus in brevi raptim et subito ... -dejecit, et ... ex dirutis ædificiis et abstractis domos episcopales -egregias sibi in eadem urbe construxit." On the other hand, the _Hyde -Cartulary_ assigns the destruction of the palace to the siege (_vide -infra_.). - -[404] "Interea ex turre pontificis jaculatum incendium in domos -burgensium (qui, ut dixi, proniores erant imperatricis felicitati) -comprehendit et combussit abbatiam totam sanctimonialium intra urbem, -simulque cænobium quod dicitur ad Hidam extra" (_Will. Malms._, p. 752). -"Qui intus recludebantur ignibus foras emissis majorem civitatis partem -sed et duas abbatias in favillas penitus redegerunt" (_Gesta_, p. 83). -"Siquidem secundo die mensis Augusti ignis civitati immissis, -monasterium sanctimonialium cum suis ædificiis, ecclesias plus XL cum -majori seu meliori parte civitatis, postremo cænobium monachorum Deo et -Sancto Grimbaldo famulantium, cum suis ædibus redegit in cineres" -(_Cont. Flor. Wig._, p. 133). It is from this last writer that we get -the date (August 2), which we should never have gathered from William of -Malmesbury (who mentions this fire in conjunction with the burning of -Wherwell Abbey, at the close of the siege) or from the _Gesta_. M. Paris -(_Chron. Maj._, ii. 174) assigns the fire, like William of Malmesbury, -to the end of the siege, but his version, "Destructa est Wintonia XVIII -kal. Oct., et captus est R. Comes Glovernie die exaltationis Sancte -Crucis," is self-stultifying, the two dates being one and the same. The -Continuator's date is confirmed by the independent evidence of the _Hyde -Cartulary_ (among the Stowe MSS.), which states that on Saturday, the -2nd of August ("Sabbato IIII. non. Augusti"), the city was burned by the -bishop's forces, "et eodem die dicta civitas Wyntonie capta est et -spoliata." From this source we further obtain the interesting fact that -the Conqueror's palace in the city ("totum palatium cum aula sua") -perished on this occasion. Allusion is made to this fact in the same -cartulary's account of a council held by Henry of Winchester in the -cathedral, in November, 1150, where the parish of St. Laurence is -assigned the site "super quam aulam suam et palacium edificari fecit -(Rex Willelmus)," which palace "in adventu Roberti Comitis Gloecestrie -combustum fuit." The Continuator (_more suo_) assigns the fire to the -cruelty of the bishop; but it was the ordinary practice in such cases. -As from the tower of Le Mans in 1099 (_Ord. Vit._), as from the tower of -Hereford Cathedral but a few years before this (_Gesta Stephani_), so -now at Winchester the firebrands flew: and so again at Lewes, in far -later days (1264), where on the evening of the great battle there blazed -forth from the defeated Royalists, sheltered on the castle height, a mad -shower of fire. - -[405] "Statimque propter omnes misit quos regi fauturos sciebat. -Venerunt ergo fere omnes comites Angliæ; erant enim juvenes et leves, et -qui mallent equitationum discursus quam pacem" (_Will. Malms._, p. 751). -Cf. _Hen. Hunt._, p. 275, and _Gesta_, pp. 81, 82. - -[406] _Early Plantagenets_, p. 25. Compare _Const. Hist._, i. 329: "The -Earl of Chester, although, whenever he prevailed on himself to act, he -took part against Stephen, fought rather on his own account than on -Matilda's." - -[407] _Sym. Dun._, ii. 310. - -[408] "Reinulfus enim comes Cestrie tarde et inutiliter advenit" (_Will. -Malms._, p. 751). - -[409] "Invictâ Londoniensium catervâ, qui, fere mille, cum galeis et -loricis ornatissime instructi convenerant" (_Gesta_, p. 82). - -[410] "Venit _tandem_ exercitus Lundoniensis, et aucti numerose qui -contra imperatricem contendebant, fugere eam compulerunt" (p. 275). - -[411] _Gesta_, p. 82. The _Annals of Winchester_ (p. 52) strangely -reverse the respective positions of the two: "Imperatrix cum suis -castellum tenuit regium et orientalem (_sic_) partem Wintonie et -burgenses cum ea; legatus cum suis castrum suum cum parte occidentali" -(_sic_). - -[412] _Will. Malms._, p. 752. - -[413] _Ibid._; _Gesta_, p. 83. - -[414] "Provisum est igitur, et communi consilio provisé, ut sibi -videbatur, statutum, quatinus penes abbatiam Werwellensem, quæ a Ventâ -civitate VI. milliariis distabat, trecentis (_sic_) ibi destinatis -militibus, castellum construerent, ut scilicet inde et regales facilius -arcerentur, et ciborum subsidia competentius in urbe dirigerentur" (p. -83). - -[415] "Emissi sunt autem ducenti (_sic_) milites, cum Rodberto filio Edæ -et Henrici regis notho et Johanne Marascaldo, ut conducerent in urbem -eos qui comportabant victualia in ministerium imperatricis et eorum qui -obsessi fuerant" (_Sym. Dun._, ii. 310). - -[416] "Quos persecuti Willelmus Dipre et pars exercitus usque ad -Warewella (ubi est congregatio sanctimonialium) et milites et omnem -apparatum, qui erat copiosus, abduxerunt" (_ibid_). "Subito et -insperaté, cum intolerabili multitudine Werwellam advenerunt, -fortiterque in eos undique irruentes captis et interemptis plurimis, -cedere tandem reliquos et in templum se recipere compulerunt" (_Gesta_, -p. 83). - -[417] _Vide infra._ Since the above was written Mr. Howlett, in his -edition of the _Gesta_ (p. 82, _note_), has noted the contradiction in -the narrative, but seems to lean to the latter version as being -supported by the Marshal poem. - -[418] As has been duly pointed out by its accomplished editor, M. Paul -Meyer (_Romania_, vol. xi.), who will shortly, it may be hoped, publish -the entire poem. - -[419] - - "Li Mareschals de son afaire - Ne sout que dire ne que feire, - N'i vit rescose ne confort. - A Brien de Walingofort - Commanda a mener la dame, - E dist, sor le peril de s'alme - Q'en nul lieu ne s'aresteiisent, - Por nul besoing que il eiisent, - N'en bone veie ne en male, - De si qu'a Lothegaresale; - E cil tost e hastivement - En fist tot son commandement" (Lines 225-236). - -[420] "Cumque vice castelli ad se defendendos templo uterentur, alii, -facibus undique injectis, semiustulatos eos e templo prodire, et ad -votum suum se sibi subdere coegerunt. Erat quidem horrendum," etc. -(_Gesta_, p. 83). "Johannem etiam, fautorem eorum, ad monasterium -Warewellense fugientem milites episcopi persequentes, cum exinde nullo -modo expellere valuissent, in ipsâ die festivitatis Exaltationis Sanctæ -Crucis [Sept. 14], immisso igne ipsam ecclesiam Sanctæ Crucis cum -sanctimonialium rebus et domibus cremaverunt, ... prædictum tamen -Johannem nec capere nec expellere potuerunt" (_Cont. Flor. Wig._, p. -135). So also _Will. Malms._ (p. 752): "Combusta est etiam abbatia -sanctimonialium de Warewellâ a quodam Willelmo de Iprâ homine nefando, -qui nec Deo nec hominibus reverentiam observaret, quod in eâ quidam -imperatricis fautores se contutati essent." - -[421] - - "Li Mareschas el guié s'estut, - A son poer les contrestut. - Tute l'ost sur lui descarcha - Qui si durement le charcha - Que n'i pont naint plus durer; - Trop lui fui fort a endurer, - Einz s'enbati en un mostier; - N'ont o lui k'un sol chevaler. - Quant li real les aperçurent - Qu'el mostier enbatu se furent: - 'Or ça, li feus!' funt il, 'or sa, - Li traitres ne li garra.' - Quant li feus el moster se prist, - En la vis de la tor se mist. - Li chevaliers li dist: 'Beau sire, - Or ardrum ci a grant martire: - Ce sera pecchiez e damages. - Rendom nos, si ferom que sages.' - Cil respundi mult cruelment: - N'en parler ja, gel te defent; - Ke, s'en diseies plus ne mains, - Ge t'occirreie de mes mains.' - Por le grant feu qui fu entor - Dejeta li pluns de la tor, - Si que sor le vis li chaï, - Dunt leidement li meschaï, - K'un de ses elz i out perdu - Dunt molt se tint a esperdu, - Mais, merci Dieu, n'i murust pas. - E li real en es le pas - Por mort e por ars le quiderent; - A Vincestre s'en returnerent, - Mais n'i fu ne mors ne esteinz" (Lines 237-269). - -[422] "Ubi lacrymabilem præfati infortunii audissent eventum de -obsidione diutius ingerendâ ex toto desperati, fugæ quammaturé inire -præsidium sibi consuluere" (_Gesta_, pp. 83, 84). "Qui jam non in -concertatione sed in fuga spem salutis gerentes egressi sunt, ne forte -victores cum Willelmo d'Ipre ad socios regressi, sumptâ fiduciâ ex -quotidianis successibus, aliquid subitum in eos excogitarent" (_Sym. -Dun._, ii. 310). - -[423] "[Comes] cedendum tempori ratus, compositis ordinibus discessionem -paravit" (p. 753). - -[424] P. 134. His strong bias against the legate makes this somewhat -confused charge unworthy of credit. - -[425] - - "La fist tantost metre a la voie - Tot dreit a Lotegaresale. - - * * * * - - Ne[l] purrent suffrir ne atendre - Cil qui o l'empereriz erent: - Al meiz ku'il purent s'en alerent, - Poingnant si que regne n'i tindrent - [J]esque soz Varesvalle vindrent; - Mès forment les desavancha - L'empereriz qui chevacha - Cumme femme fait en seant: - Ne sembla pas buen ne seant - Al Marechal, anceis li dist: - 'Dame, si m'ait Jesucrist, - L'em ne puet pas eu seant poindre; - Les jambes vos covient desjoindre - E metre par en son l'arçun.' - El le fist, volsist ele ou non, - Quer lor enemis le[s] grevoient - Qui de trop près les herd[i]oient" (Lines 198, 199, 208-224). - -The quaint detail here given is confirmed, as M. Meyer notes, by the -Continuator's phrase (_vide infra_, note 2). - -[426] "In loco qui Stolibricge dicitur a Flammensibus cum comite -Warrennensi captus" (_Cont. Flor. Wig._, p. 135). Cf. p. 134, and _Will. -Malms._ (pp. 753, 758, 759), _Gesta_ (p. 84), _Sym. Dun._ (ii. 311), -_Hen. Hunt._ (p. 275). As in Matilda's flight from London, so in her -flight from Winchester, the author of the _Gesta_ appears to advantage -with his descriptive and spirited account. - -[427] "Hæc audiens domina, vehementer exterrita atque turbata, ad -castellum quo tendebat de Ludkereshala tristis ac dolens advenit, sed -ibi locum tutum quiescendi, propter metum episcopi, non invenit. Unde, -hortantibus suis, equo iterum usu masculino supposita, atque ad Divisas -perducta" (_Cont. Flor. Wig._, p. 134). - -[428] "Castellum quod vocatur Divise, quo non erat aliud splendidius -intra fines Europæ" (_Hen. Hunt._, p. 265). "Castellum ... multis et vix -numerabilibus sumptibus, non (ut ipse præsul dictabat) ad ornamentum, -sed (ut se rei veritas habet) ad ecclesiæ detrimentum, ædificatum" -(_Will. Malms._, pp. 717, 718). It had been raised by the Bishop of -Salisbury, and it passed, at his fall, into Stephen's hands. It is then -described by the author of the _Gesta_ (p. 66) as "castellum regis, quod -Divisa dicebatur, ornanter et inexpugnabiliter muratum." It was -subsequently surprised by Robert fitz Hubert, who held it for his own -hand till his capture, when the Earl of Gloucester tried hard to extort -its surrender from him. In this, however, he failed. Robert was hanged, -and, soon after, his garrison sold it to Stephen, by whom it was -entrusted to Hervey of Brittany, whom he seems to have made Earl of -Wilts. But on Stephen's capture, the peasantry rose, and extorted its -surrender from Hervey. Thenceforth, it was a stronghold of the Empress -(see for this the Continuator and the _Gesta_). - -[429] "Cum nec ibi secure se tutari posse, ob insequentes, formidaret, -jam pene exanimis feretro invecta, et funibus quasi cadaver ligata, -equis deferentibus, sat ignominiose ad civitatem deportatur Glaornensem" -(_Cont. Flor. Wig._, 134). The author of the _Gesta_ (p. 85) mentions -her flight to Devizes ("Brieno tantum cum paucis comite, ad Divisas -confugit"), and incidentally observes (p. 87) that she was "ex -Wintoniensi dispersione quassa nimis, et usque ad defectum pené -defatigata" (_i.e._ "tired to death;" cf. _supra_). John of Hexham -merely says: "Et imperatrix quidem non sine magno conflictu et plurima -difficultate erepta est" (_Sym. Dun._, ii. 310). - -[430] Camden, in his _Britannia_, gives the story, but Knighton (De -eventibus Angliæ, lib. ii., in _Scriptores_ X.) seems to be the chief -offender. Dugdale follows with the assertion that "she was necessitated -... for her more security to be put into a coffin, as a dead corps, to -escape their hands" (i. 537 _b_). According to Milner (_History of -Winchester_, p. 162), "she was enclosed like a corpse in a sheet of -lead, and was thus suffered to pass in a horse-litter as if carried out -for interment, through the army of her besiegers, a truce having been -granted for this purpose." Even Edwards, in his introduction to the -_Liber de Hyda_ (p. xlviii.), speaks of "the raising of the siege; a -raising precipitated, if we accept the accounts of Knighton and some -other chroniclers who accord with him, by the strange escape of the -Empress Maud from Winchester Castle concealed in a leaden coffin." _Sic -crescit eundo._ - -[431] _Will. Malms._, p. 754. - -[432] See donation of Miles (_Monasticon_, vi. 137), stated to have been -made in their presence, and in the year 1141, in which he speaks of -himself as "apud Bristolium positus, jamque consulatus honorem adeptus." -Brian had escorted the Empress in her flight, but Miles, intercepted by -the enemy, had barely escaped with his life ("de solâ vita lætus ad -Glaornam cum dedecore fugiendo pervenit lassus, solus, et pene -nudus."—_Cont. Flor. Wig._, p. 135). - - - - - CHAPTER VII. - THE SECOND CHARTER OF THE KING. - - -The liberation of the king from his captivity was hailed with joy by his -adherents, and not least, we may be sure, in his loyal city of London. -The greatness of the event is seen, perhaps, in the fact that it is even -mentioned in a private London deed of the time, executed "Anno MCXLI., -Id est in exitu regis Stephani de captione Roberti filii regis -Henrici."[432b] - -In spite of his faults we may fairly assume that the king's imprisonment -had aroused a popular reaction in his favour, as it did in the case of -Charles I., five centuries later. The experiences also of the summer had -been greatly in his favour. For, however unfit he may have been to fill -the throne himself, he was able now to point to the fact that his rival -had been tried and found wanting. - -He would now be eager to efface the stain inflicted on his regal -dignity, to show in the sight of all men that he was again their king, -and then to execute vengeance on those whose captive he had been. The -first step to be taken was to assemble a council of the realm that -should undo the work of the April council at Winchester, and formally -recognize in him the rightful possessor of the throne. This council met -on the 7th of December at Westminster, the king himself being -present.[433] The ingenious legate was now as ready to prove that his -brother, and not the Empress, should rightly fill the throne, as, we -saw, he was in April to prove the exact reverse. The two grounds on -which he based his renunciation were, first, that the Empress had failed -to fulfil her pledges to the Church;[434] second, that her failure -implied the condemnation of God.[435] - -A solemn coronation might naturally follow, to set, as it were, the seal -to the work of this assembly. Perhaps the nearest parallel to this -second coronation is to be found in that of Richard I., in 1194, after -his captivity and humiliation.[436] I think we have evidence that -Stephen himself looked on this as a second coronation, and as no mere -"crown-wearing," in a precept in favour of the monks of Abingdon, in -which he alludes incidentally to the day of his _first_ coronation.[437] -This clearly implies a second coronation since; and as the precept is -attested by Richard de Luci, it is presumably subsequent to that second -coronation, to which we now come. - -It cannot be wondered that this event has been unnoticed by historians, -for it is only recorded in a single copy of the works of a single -chronicler. We are indebted to Dr. Stubbs and his scholarly edition of -the writings of Gervase of Canterbury for our knowledge of the fact that -in one, and that comparatively imperfect, of the three manuscripts on -which his text is based, we read of a coronation of Stephen, at -Canterbury, "placed under 1142." We learn from him that in this MS. "it -is probably inserted in a wrong place," as indeed is evident from the -fact that at Christmas, 1142, Stephen was at Oxford. Here is the passage -in question:— - - "Deinde rex Stephanus una cum regina et nobilitate procerum ad Natale - Domini gratiosus adveniens, in ipsa solempnitate in ecclesiâ Christi a - venerabili Theobaldo ejusdem ecclesiæ archiepiscopo coronatus est; ipsa - etiam regina cum eo ibidem coronam auream gestabat in capite" - (_Gervase_, i. 123). - -It should perhaps be noticed that, while the Queen is merely said to -have worn her crown, Stephen is distinctly stated to have been crowned. -I cannot but think that this must imply a distinction between them, and -supports the view that this coronation was due to the captivity of the -king. - -My contention is that the date of this event was Christmas, 1141, and -that the choice, for its scene, of the Kentish capital was a graceful -compliment to that county which, in the darkest hour of the king's -fortunes, had remained faithful to his cause, and to the support of -which his restoration had been so largely due.[438] - -I further hold that the second charter granted to Geoffrey de Mandeville -was executed on this occasion, and that in its witnesses we have the -list of that "nobilitas procerum" by which, according to Gervase, this -coronation was attended. - -This charter, when rightly dated, is indeed the keystone of my story. -For without it we could not form that series on which the sequence of -events is based. It is admittedly subsequent to the king's liberation, -for it refers to the battle of Lincoln. It must also be previous to -Geoffrey's death in 1144. These are the obvious limits given in the -official calendar.[439] But it must further be previous to Geoffrey's -fall in 1143. Lastly, it must be previous to the Oxford, or second, -charter of the Empress, in which we shall find it is referred to. As -that charter cannot be later than the summer of 1142, our limit is again -narrowed. Now the charter is tested at Canterbury. Stephen cannot, it -seems, have been there in the course of 1142. This accordingly leaves -us, as the only possible date, the close of 1141; and this is the very -date of the king's coronation at Canterbury. When we add to this train -of reasoning the fact that the number of earls by whom the charter is -witnessed clearly points to some great state ceremonial, we cannot feel -the slightest doubt that the charter must, as I observed, have passed on -this occasion. With this conclusion its character will be found in -complete accordance, for it plainly represents the price for which the -traitor earl consented to change sides again, and to place at the -disposal of his outraged king that Tower of London, its citadel and its -dread, the possession of which once more enabled him to dictate his own -terms. - -Those terms were that, in the first place, he should forfeit nothing for -his treason in having joined the cause of the Empress, and should be -confirmed in his possession of all that he held before the king's -capture. But his demands far exceeded the mere _status quo ante_. Just -as he had sold his support to the Empress when she gave him an advance -on Stephen's terms, so the Queen must have brought him back by offering -terms, at the crisis of the struggle, in excess even of those which he -had just wrung from the Empress. He would now insist that these great -concessions should be confirmed by the king himself. Such is the -explanation of the strange character of this Canterbury charter. - - CHARTER OF THE KING TO GEOFFREY DE MANDEVILLE - (Christmas, 1141). - -S. rex Angl[orum] Archiepiscopis Episcopis Abbatibus Comitibus -Justic[iariis] Vicecomitibus Baronibus et Omnibus Ministris et fidelibus -suis francis et Anglis totius Anglie salutem. Sciatis me reddidisse et -firmiter concesisse Gaufr[ido] Comiti de Essexâ omnia sua tenementa que -tenuit, de quocunque illa tenuerit, die quâ impeditus fui apud -Linc[olniam] et captus. Et præter hoc dedi ei et concessi CCC libratas -terræ scilicet Meldonam[440] et Neweport et Depedenam et Banhunte et -Ingam et Phingriam[441] et Chateleam cum omnibus suis Appendiciis pro C -libris. Et Writelam[442] pro vi.xx libris. Et Hadfeld[443] pro quater.xx -libris cum omnibus appendiciis illorum Maneriorum. Et præter hec dedi ei -et concessi in feodo et hereditate de me et de meis hæredibus sibi et -suis heredibus C libratas terræ de terris excaatis, scilicet totam -terram Roberti de Baentona[444] quam tenuit in Essexâ, videlicet -Reneham[445] et Hoilandam,[446] Et Amb[er]denam[447] et Wodeham[448] -et Eistan',[449] quam Picardus de Danfront[450] tenuit. Et -Ichilintonam[451] cum omnibus eorum appendiciis pro C libris. Et -præterea dedi ei et firmiter concessi in feodo et hereditate C libratas -terræ ad opus Ernulfi de Mannavilla de ipso Comite Gaufredo tenendas, -scilicet Anastiam,[452] et Braching,[453] et Hamam[454] cum omnibus -eorum appendiciis. Et C solidatas terræ in Hadfeld ad præfatas C -libratas terræ perficiend[um]. Et præterea dedi ei et concessi custodiam -turris Lond[oniæ] cum Castello quod ei subest habend[um] et tenendum -sibi et suis hæredibus de me et de meis heredibus cum omnibus rebus et -libertatibus et consuetudinibus prefate turri pertinentibus. Et -Justicias et Vicecomitat' de Lond[oniâ] et de Middlesexâ in feodo et -hereditate eadem firma qua Gaufridus de Mannavilla avus suus eas tenuit, -scilicet pro CCC libris. Et Justitias et Vicecomitat' de Essexâ et de -Heortfordiscirâ eâdem firmâ quâ avus ejus eas tenuit, ita tamen quod -dominica que de prædictis Comitatibus data sunt ipsi Comiti Gaufredo aut -alicui alii a firmâ præfatâ subtrahantur et illi et hæredibus suis ad -scaccarium combutabuntur. Et præterea firmiter ei concessi ut possit -firmare quoddam castellum ubicunque voluerit in terrâ suâ et quod stare -possit. Et præterea dedi eidem Comiti Gaufr[edo] et firmiter concessi in -feodo et hereditate sibi et hæredibus suis de me et de meis heredibus lx -milites feudatos, de quibus Ernulfus de Mannavillâ tenebit x in feodo et -hereditate de patre suo, scilicet servicium Graalondi de Tania[455] pro -vii militibus et dimidio Et servicium Willelmi filii Roberti pro vii -militibus Et servicium Brient[ii] filii Radulfi[456] pro v militibus Et -servicium Roberti filii Geroldi pro xi militibus Et servicium Radulfi -filii Geroldi pro i milite Et servicium Willelmi de Tresgoz[457] pro vi -militibus Et servicium Mauricii de Chic[he] pro v militibus et servicium -Radulfi Maled[octi] pro ii militibus Et servicium Goisb[erti] de Ing[â] -pro i milite Et servicium Willelmi filii Heru[ei] pro iii militibus Et -servicium Willelmi de Auco pro j milite et dimidio Et servicium Willelmi -de Bosevillâ[458] pro ii militibus Et servicium Mathei Peur[elli][459] -pro iiij militibus Et servicium Ade de Sum[er]i de feodo de -Elmedonâ[460] pro iij militibus Et servicium Rann[ulfi] Briton[is][461] -pro i milite. Et præterea quicquid Carta Regine testatur ei dedi et -concessi. Omnia autem hec prædicta tenementa, scilicet in terris et -dominiis et serviciis militum et in Custodia turris Lon[doniæ] et -Castelli quod turri subest et in Justiciis et Vicecomitatibus et omnibus -prædictis rebus et consuetudinibus et libertatibus, dedi ei et firmiter -concessi Comiti Gaufredo in feodo et hereditate de me et de meis -heredibus sibi et heredibus suis pro servicio suo. Quare volo et -firmiter præcipio quod ipse et heredes sui post eum habeant et teneant -omnia illa tenementa et concessiones adeo libere et quiete et honorifice -sicut aliquis omnium Comitum totius Angliæ aliquod suum tenementum tenet -vel tenuit liberius et honorificentius et quietius et plenius. - -T[estibus] M. Regina et H[enrico] Ep[iscop]o Wint[onensi] et W[illelmo] -Com[ite] Warenn[a] et Com[ite] Gisl[eberto] de Pembroc et Com[ite] -Gisl[eberto] de heortford et W[illelmo] Com[ite] de Albarm[arlâ] et -Com[ite] Sim[one] et Comite Will[elmo] de Sudsexâ et Com[ite] Alan[o] et -Com[ite] Rob[erto] de Ferrers et Will[elmo] de Ip[râ] et Will[elmo] -Mart[el] et Bald[wino] fil[io] Gisl[eberti] et Rob[erto] de V[er] et -Pharam[o] et Ric[ardo] de Luci et Turg[isio] de Abrincis et Ada de -Belum. Apud Cantuar[iam].[462] - -It will at once be seen that this charter is one of extraordinary -interest. - -The first point to strike one, on examining the list of witnesses, is -the presence of no less than eight earls and of no more than one bishop. -To these, indeed, we may add perhaps, though by no means of necessity, -the Earl of Essex himself. Though the evidence is, of course, merely -negative, it is probable, to judge from similar cases, that had other -bishops been present, they would appear among the witnesses to the -charter. The absence of their names, therefore, is somewhat difficult to -explain, unless (if present) they were at enmity with Geoffrey. - -Another point deserving of notice is that this great gathering of earls -enables us to draw some important conclusions as to the origin and -development of their titles. We may, for instance, safely infer that -when a Christian name was borne by one earl alone, he used for his style -that name with the addition of "Comes" either as a prefix or as a -suffix. Thus we have in this instance "Comes Alanus" and "Comes Simon." -But when two or more earls bore the same Christian name, they had to be -distinguished by some addition. Thus we have "Comes Gislebertus de -Pembroc" and "Comes Gislebertus de Heortford," or "Comes Robertus de -Ferrers," as distinguished from Earl Robert "of Gloucester." The -addition of "de Essexa" to Earl Geoffrey himself, which is found in this -and other charters (see pp. 158, 183), can only, it would seem, be -intended to distinguish him from Count Geoffrey of Anjou. But here the -striking case is that of "Willelmo Comite Warenna," "Willelmo Comite de -Albarmarlâ," and "Comite Willelmo de Sudsexâ." These examples show us -how perfectly immaterial was the source from which the description was -taken. "Warenna" is used as if a surname; "Albarmarla" is "Aumâle," a -local name; and "Sudsexa" needs no comment. The same noble who here -attests as Earl of "Albarmarla" elsewhere attests as Earl "of York," -while the Earl "of Sussex" is elsewhere a witness as Earl "of -Chichester" or "of Arundel." In short, the "Comes" really belongs to the -Christian name alone. The descriptive suffix is distinct and immaterial. -But the important inference which I draw from the conclusion arrived at -above is that where we find such descriptive suffix employed, we may -gather that there was in existence at the time some other earl or count -with the same Christian name.[463] - -Among the earls, we look at once, but we look in vain, for the name of -Waleran of Meulan. But his half-brother, William de Warenne, one, like -himself, of the faithful three,[464] duly figures at the head of the -list. He is followed by their brother-in-law, the Earl of Pembroke, -whose nephew and namesake, the Earl of Hertford, and brother, Baldwin -fitz Gilbert, are also found among the witnesses. With them is another -of the faithful three, Earl Simon of Northampton. There too is Earl Alan -of Richmond, and the fortunate William of Albini, now Earl William of -Sussex. Robert of Ferrers and William of Aumâle, both of them heroes of -the Battle of the Standard, complete the list of earls.[465] - -It would alone be sufficient to make this charter of importance that it -affords the earliest record evidence of the existence of two famous -earldoms, that of Hertford or Clare, and that of Arundel or Sussex.[466] -Indeed I know of no earlier mention in any contemporary chronicler. We -further learn from it that William of Ypres was not an earl at the time, -as has been persistently stated. Nor have I ever found a record in which -he is so styled. Lastly, we have here a noteworthy appearance of one -afterwards famous as Richard de Luci the Loyal, who was destined to play -so great a part as a faithful and trusted minister for nearly forty -years to come.[467] His appearance as an attesting witness at least as -early as this (Christmas, 1141) is a fact more especially deserving of -notice because it must affect the date of many other charters. Mr. Eyton -thought that "his earliest attestation yet proved is 1146,"[468] and -hence found his name a difficulty, at times, as a witness. William -Martel was another official in constant attendance on Stephen. He is -described in the _Gesta_ (p. 92) as "vir illustris, fide quoque et -amicitiâ potissimum regi connexus." At the affair of Wilton, with its -disgraceful surprise and rout of the royal forces, he was made prisoner -and forced to give Sherborne Castle as the price of his liberty -(_ibid._). By his wife "Albreda" he was father of a son and heir, -Geoffrey.[469] - -Of the remaining witnesses, Pharamus (fitz William) de Boulogne was -_nepos_ of the queen. In 1130 he was indebted £20 to the Exchequer "pro -placitis terre sue [Surrey] et ut habeat terram suam quam Noverca sua -tenet" (_Rot. Pip._, 31 Hen. I., p. 50). In the present year (1141) he -had been in joint charge of the king's _familia_ during his -captivity:—"Rexit autem familiam regis Stephani Willelmus d'Ipre, homo -Flandrensis et Pharamus nepos reginæ Matildis, et iste Bononiensis" -(_Sym. Dun._, ii. 310). His ravages—"per destructionem Faramusi"—are -referred to in the Pipe-Roll of 1156 (p. 15), but he retained favour -under Henry II., receiving £60 annually from the royal dues in Wendover -and Eton. In May, 1157, he attested, at Colchester, the charter of -Henry II. to Feversham Abbey (Stephen's foundation). He held six fees of -the honour of Boulogne. His grandfather, Geoffrey, is described as a -_nepos_ of Eustace of Boulogne. With his daughter and heiress Sibyl, his -lands passed to the family of Fiennes. - -Robert de V(er) would be naturally taken for the younger brother of -Aubrey the chamberlain, slain in 1141.[470] This might seem so obvious -that to question it may appear strange. Yet there is reason to believe -that his identity was wholly different. I take him to be Robert (fitz -_Bernard_) de Vere, who is presumably the "Robert de Vere" who figures -as an Essex landowner in the Pipe-Roll of 1130, for he is certainly the -"Robert de Vere" who is entered in that same roll as acquiring lands in -Kent, with his wife, for whom he had paid the Crown £210, at that time a -large sum. She was an heiress, (sister of Robert and) daughter of Hugh -de Montfort, a considerable landowner in Kent and in the Eastern -Counties. With her he founded, on her Kentish estate, the Cluniac priory -of Monks Horton, and in the charters relating to that priory he is -spoken of as a royal constable. As such he attested the Charter of -Liberties issued by Stephen at Oxford in 1136. I am therefore of opinion -that he is the witness who attests this Canterbury charter, the Oxford -charter of about a year later,[471] and some others in the course of -this reign.[472] He had also witnessed some charters towards the close -of the preceding reign, and would seem to be the Robert de Ver who was -among those who took charge of the body of Henry I. at his death.[473] - -Baldwin fitz Gilbert occurs repeatedly in the Pipe-Roll of 31 Hen. I. He -was a younger son of Gilbert de Clare, a brother of Gilbert, afterwards -Earl of Pembroke, and uncle of Gilbert, Earl of Hertford. He appears, as -early as January, 1136, in attendance on Stephen, at Reading, where he -witnessed one of the charters to Miles of Gloucester. He was then sent -by the king into Wales to avenge the death of his brother Richard (de -Clare); but, on reaching Brecknock, turned back in fear (_Gesta_, p. -12). At the battle of Lincoln (February 2, 1141), he acted as spokesman -on the king's behalf, and was captured by the forces of the Empress, -after he had been covered with wounds.[474] - -Turgis of Avranches (the namesake of its bishop) we have met with as a -witness to Stephen's former charter to Geoffrey. He seems to have been -placed, on Geoffrey's fall (1143), in charge of his castle of Walden, -and, apparently, of the whole property. Though Stephen had raised him, -it was said, from the ranks and loaded him with favours, he ended by -offering him resistance, but was surprised by him, in the forest, when -hunting, and forced to surrender (_Gesta_, p. 110). - -Passing now from the witnesses to the subject-matter of the charter, we -have first the clause replacing Geoffrey in the same position as he was -before the battle of Lincoln, in despite of his treason to the king's -cause. The next clause illustrates the system of advancing bids. Whereas -the Empress had granted Geoffrey £100 a year, charged on certain manors -of royal demesne in Essex, Stephen now increased that grant to £300 a -year, by adding the manors of Writtle (£120) and Hatfield (£80). He -further granted him another £100 a year payable from lands which had -escheated to the Crown. And lastly, he granted to his son Ernulf £100 a -year, likewise charged on land. - -The next clause grants him, precisely as in the charter of the Empress, -the constableship of the Tower of London and of its appendant -"castle,"[475] with the exception that the Empress uses the term -"concedo" where Stephen has "dedi et concessi." The latter expression is -somewhat strange in view of the fact that Geoffrey had been in full -possession of the Tower before the struggle had begun, and, indeed, by -hereditary right. - -We then return to what I have termed the system of advancing bids. For -where the Empress had granted Geoffrey the office of justice and sheriff -of Essex alone, Stephen makes him justice and sheriff, not merely of -Essex, but of Herts and of London and Middlesex to boot. Nor is even -this all; for, whereas the Empress had allowed him to hold Essex to farm -for the same annual sum which it had paid at her father's death,[476] -Stephen now leases it to him at the annual rent which his grandfather -had paid.[477] The fact that in the second charter of the Empress she -adopts, we shall find, the original rental,[478] instead of, as before, -that which was paid at the time of her father's death, proves that, in -this Canterbury charter, Stephen had outbid her, and further proves that -Henry I. had increased, after his wont, the sum at which the sheriff -held Essex of the Crown. This, indeed, is clear from the Pipe-Roll of -1130, which records a _firma_ far in excess of the £300 which, according -to these charters, Geoffrey's grandfather had paid.[479] It may be noted -that while Stephen's charter gives in actual figures the "ferm" which -had been paid by Geoffrey's grandfather, and which Geoffrey himself was -now to pay for London and Middlesex, it merely provides, in the case of -Essex and Hertfordshire, that he was to pay what his grandfather had -paid, without mentioning what that sum was. Happily, we obtain the -information in the subsequent charter of the Empress, and we are tempted -to infer from the silence of this earlier charter on the point, that -while the ancient _firma_ of London and Middlesex was a sum familiar to -men, that of Essex and Herts could only be ascertained by research, -pending which the Crown declined to commit itself to the sum. - -It is scarcely necessary that I should insist on the extraordinary value -of this statement and formal admission by the Crown that London and -Middlesex had been held to farm by the elder Geoffrey de Mandeville—that -is, towards the close of the eleventh century, or, at latest, in the -beginning of the twelfth—and that the amount of the _firma_ was £300 a -year. One cannot understand how such a fact, of which the historical -student cannot fail to grasp the importance, can have been overlooked so -long, when it has virtually figured in Dugdale's _Baronage_ for more -than two centuries. The only writer, so far as I know, who has ventured -on an estimate of the annual render from London at the time of Domesday -arrives at the conclusion that "we can hardly be wrong in putting the -returns at ... about £850 a year."[480] We have seen that, on the -contrary, the rental, even later than Domesday, was £300 a year, and -this not for London only, but for London and Middlesex together.[481] - -Nothing, indeed, could show more plainly the necessity for such a work -as I have here undertaken, and the new light which the evidence of these -charters throws upon the history of the time, than a comparison of the -results here obtained with the statements in Mr. Loftie's work,[482] -published under the editorship of Professor Freeman, which, though far -less inaccurate than his earlier and larger work, contains such passages -as this:— - - "Matilda had one chance of conciliating the citizens, and she threw it - away. The immemorial liberties which had been enjoyed for generations, - and confirmed by William and Henry, were taken from the city, which for - the first and last time in its history was put 'in demesne.' The Earl - of Essex, Geoffrey de Mandeville, whose father is said by Stow to have - been portreeve, was given Middlesex 'in farm' with the Tower for his - castle, and no person could hold pleas either in city or county without - his permission. The feelings of the Londoners were fully roused. Though - Stephen was actually a prisoner, and Matilda's fortunes never seemed - brighter, her cause was lost.... The citizens soon saw that her putting - them in demesne was no mistake committed in a hasty moment in times of - confusion, but was part of a settled policy. This decided the waverers - and doubled the party of Stephen.... Stephen was exchanged for the Earl - of Gloucester, the Tower was surrendered, the dominion was removed, and - London had its liberty once more; but after such an experience it is - not wonderful that the citizens held loyally to Stephen during the - short remainder of his life" (pp. 36, 37).[483] - -A more complete travesty of history it would not be possible to -conceive. "The immemorial liberties" were no older than the charter -wrung from Henry a few years before, and so far from the city being "put -'in demesne'" (whatever may be meant by this expression),[484] "for the -first and last time in its history," the Empress, had she done what is -here charged to her, would have merely placed Geoffrey in the shoes of -his grandfather and namesake.[485] But the strange thing is that she did -nothing of the kind, and that the facts, in Mr. Loftie's narrative, are -turned topsy-turvey. It was not by Matilda in June, but by Stephen in -December, that London and Middlesex were placed in Geoffrey's power. The -Empress did not do that which she is stated to have done; and Stephen -did do what he is said to have undone. The result of his return to -power, so far as London was concerned, was that the Tower was _not_ -surrendered, but, on the contrary, confirmed to Geoffrey, and that so -far from "the dominion" (an unintelligible expression) being "removed," -or London regaining its liberty, it was now deprived of its liberty by -being placed, as even the Empress had refrained from placing it, beneath -the yoke of Geoffrey. Thus it was certainly not due to his conduct on -this occasion "that the citizens of London held loyally to Stephen -during the short remainder of his life." Nor, it may be added, is it -possible to understand what is meant by that "short remainder," for -these events happened early in Stephen's reign, not a third of which had -elapsed at the time. - -But the important point is this. Here was Stephen anxious on the one -hand to reward the Londoners for their allegiance, and, on the other, to -punish Geoffrey for his repeated offences against himself, and yet -compelled by the force of circumstances actually to reward Geoffrey at -the cost of the Londoners themselves. We need no more striking -illustration of the commanding position and overwhelming power which the -ambitious earl had now obtained by taking advantage of the rival claims, -and skilfully holding the balance between the two parties, as was done -by a later king-maker in the strife of Lancaster and York. - -Passing over for the present the remarkable expressions which illustrate -my theory of the differentiation of the offices of justice and sheriff, -I would invite attention to Geoffrey's claim to be placed in the shoes -of his grandfather, as an instance of the tendency, in this reign, of -the magnates to advance quasi-hereditary claims, often involving, as it -were, the undoing of the work of Henry I. William de Beauchamp was -anxious to be placed in the shoes of Robert le Despenser; the Beaumont -Earl of Leicester in those of William Fitz Osbern; the Earl of Oxford in -those of William of Avranches; and Geoffrey himself, we shall find, in -those of "Eudo Dapifer." - -A point of great importance awaits us in the reference which, in this -charter, is made to the Exchequer. I expressed a doubt, when dealing -with the first charter of the Empress,[486] as to the supposed total -extinction of the working of the Exchequer under Stephen. The author of -the _Dialogus_, though anxious to emphasize its re-establishment under -Henry II., goes no further than to speak of its system being "_pene_ -prorsus abolitam" in the terrible time of the Anarchy (I. viii.). Now -here, in 1141, at the very height, one might say, of the Anarchy, we not -only find the Exchequer spoken of as in full existence, but, which is -most important to observe, we have the precise Exchequer _formulæ_ which -we find under Henry II. The "Terræ datæ," or alienated Crown demesnes, -are represented here by the "dominia que de predictis comitatibus data -sunt," and the provision that they should be subtracted from the fixed -ferm ("a firma subtrahantur") is a formula found in use subsequently, as -is, even more, the phrase "ad scaccarium computabuntur."[487] - -The next clause deals with castles, that great feature of the time. Here -again the accepted view as to Stephen's laxity on the subject is greatly -modified by this evidence that even Geoffrey de Mandeville, great as was -his power, deemed it needful to secure the royal permission before -erecting a castle, and that this permission was limited to a single -fortress.[488] - -In the next clause we return to the system of counter-bids. As the king -had trebled the grants of Crown demesne made to Geoffrey by the Empress, -and trebled also the counties which had been placed in his charge by -her, so now he trebled the number of enfeoffed knights ("milites -feudatos"). The Empress had granted twenty; Stephen grants sixty. Of -these sixty, ten were to be held of Geoffrey by his son Ernulf. Here, as -before,[489] the question arises: what was the nature of the benefits -thus conferred on the grantee? They were, I think, of two kinds. In the -first place, Geoffrey became entitled to what may be termed the feudal -profits, such as reliefs, accruing from these sixty fees. In the second, -he secured sixty knights to serve beneath his banner in war. This, in a -normal state of affairs, would have been of no consequence, as he would -only have led them to serve the Crown. But in the then abnormal -condition of affairs, and utter weakness of the crown, such a grant -would be equivalent to strengthening _pro tanto_ the power of the earl -as arbiter between the two rivals for the throne. - -Independently, however, of its bearing at the time, this grant has a -special interest, as placing at our disposal a list of sixty knights' -fees, a quarter of a century older than the "cartæ" of the _Liber -Niger_.[490] - -At the close of all these specified grants comes a general confirmation -of the lost charter of the Queen ("Carta Regine"). - -Our ignorance of the actual contents of that charter renders it -difficult to speak positively as to whether Geoffrey obtained from -Stephen all the concessions he had wrung from the Empress, or had to -content himself, on some points, with less, while on most he secured -infinitely more. Thus, in the matter of "the third penny," which was -specially granted him by the Empress, we find this charter of Stephen as -silent as had been the former.[491] And the omission of a clause -authorizing the earl to deduct it from the ferm of the county virtually -implies that he did not receive it. He gained, however, infinitely more -by the great reduction in the total ferm. The grant by the Empress of a -market at Bushey, and her permission that the market at Newport should -be transferred to his castle at Walden, are not repeated in this -charter; nor does the king, as his rival had done, grant the earl -permission to fortify the Tower at his will, or to retain and strengthen -the castles he already possessed. On the other hand, he allowed him, by -a fresh concession, to raise an additional stronghold. It may also be -mentioned, to complete the comparison, that the curious reference to -appeal of treason is not found in the king's charter. - -We will now turn from this charter to the movements by which it was -followed. - -At the close of the invaluable passage from Gervase alluded to above, we -read:— - - "Rex Stephanus a Cantuariâ recedens vires suas reparare studuit, quo - severius et acrius imperatricem et omnes ipsius complices - debellaret."[492] - -His first step in this direction was to make a progress through his -realm, or at least through that portion over which he reigned supreme. -William of Malmesbury writes of his movements after Christmas:— - - "Utræque partes imperatricis et regis se cum quietis modestiâ egerunt a - Natale usque ad Quadragesimam; magis sua custodire quam aliena - incursare studentes: rex in superiores regiones abscessit nescio quæ - compositurus" (p. 763). - -This scrupulous reluctance of the writer to relate events of which he -had no personal knowledge is evidently meant to confirm his assurance, -just above, that he had the greatest horror of so misleading -posterity.[492b] The thread of the narrative, however, which he drops is -taken up by John of Hexham, who tells us that "after Easter" (April 19) -the king and queen arrived at York, put a stop to a projected tournament -between the two great Yorkshire earls, and endeavoured to complete the -preparations for the king's revenge upon his foes.[493] - -Before proceeding, I would call attention to two charters which must, it -seems, have passed between the king's visit to Canterbury (Christmas, -1141), and his appearance with the queen in Yorkshire (Easter, 1142). I -do so, firstly, because their witnesses ought to be compared with those -by whom the Canterbury charter was attested; secondly, because one of -them is a further instance of how, as in the case of the Canterbury -charter, chronicles and charters may be made to confirm and explain each -other. - -The first of these charters is the confirmation by Stephen of the -foundation, by his constable Robert de Vere, of Monks Horton Priory, -Kent.[494] If we eliminate from its eleven witnesses those whose -attendance was due to the special contents of the charter, namely, the -Count of Eu and two Kentish barons,[495] there remain eight names, every -one of which appears in the Canterbury charter, one as grantee and seven -as witnesses. Here is the list: - -"Testibus Comite Gaufrido de Essex et Willelmo Comite de Warrenne ... Et -Comite Gilleberto de Penbroc et Willelmo de Iprâ et Willelmo Mart[el] et -Turgisio de Abrincis et Ricardo de Luci et Adam de Belu[n] ... apud -Gipeswic." - -Here then we have what might be described as King Stephen's Restoration -Court, or at least the greater portion of its leading members; and this -charter is therefore evidence that Stephen must have visited the Eastern -Counties early in 1142. It is also evidence that Earl Geoffrey was with -him on that occasion, and thus throws a gleam of light on the earl's -movements at the time. - -The other charter is known to us only from a transcript in the Great -Coucher (vol. ii. fol. 445), and is strangely assigned in the official -calendar to 1135-37.[496] The grantee is William, Earl of Lincoln, and -the list of witnesses is as follows:— - -"T. Com. Rann. et Com. Gisl. de Pembroc* et Com. Gisl. de hertf.* et -Com. Sim.* et Com. R. de Warwic' et Com. R. de Ferr.* et W. mart.* et -Bald. fil. Gisl.* et W. fil. Gisl. et Ric. de Camvill et Ric. fil. Ursi* -et E[ustachio] fil. John' et Rad. de Haia et h' Wac' et W. de Coleuill -apud Stanf'." - -Of these fifteen witnesses at least five are local men, and of the -remaining ten no fewer than seven (here distinguished by an asterisk) -had attested the Canterbury charter. But further evidence of the close -connection, in date, between these two charters is found in yet another -quarter. This is the _English Chronicle_. We there read that after the -release of Stephen from his captivity, "the king and Earl Randolf agreed -at Stamford and swore oaths and plighted troth, that neither of them -should prove traitor to the other." For this is the earliest occasion to -which that passage can refer. Stephen would pass through Stamford on his -northward progress to York, and here, clearly, at his entrance into -Lincolnshire, he was met by the two local magnates, William, Earl of -Lincoln, and Randolf, Earl of Chester. Their revolt at Lincoln, at the -close of 1140, had led directly to his fall, but it was absolutely -needful for the schemes he had in view that he should now secure their -support, and overlook their past treason. He therefore came to terms -with the two brother earls, and, further, bestowed on the Earl of -Lincoln the manor of Kirton-in-Lindsey ("Chircheton"), and confirmed him -in possession of his castle of Gainsborough and his bridge over Trent, -"libere et quiete tenendum omnibus liberis consuetudinibus cum quibus -aliquis comes Anglie tenet castella sua,"—a formula well deserving -attention as bearing on the two peculiar features of this unhappy time, -its earls and its castles. - -Lastly, we should observe the family relationship between the grantee -and the witnesses of this charter. The first witness was his -half-brother, Earl Randolf of Chester, who was uncle of Earl Gilbert of -Hertford, who was nephew of Earl Gilbert of Pembroke, who was brother of -W(alter) fitz Gilbert and Baldwin fitz Gilbert, of whom the latter's -daughter married H(ugh) Wac (Wake). Of the other witnesses, Ralph de -Haye was of the family which then, and Richard de Camville of that which -afterwards, held the constableship of Lincoln Castle. Earl R(oger) of -Warwick (a supporter of the Empress) should be noticed as an addition to -the Canterbury list of earls, and the descriptive style "de Warwicâ" may -perhaps be explained as inserted here to distinguish him from Earl -R(obert) "de Ferrers." - -Gervase of Canterbury and John of Hexham alike lay stress on the fact -that the king, eager for revenge, was bent on renewing the strife. -William of Malmesbury echoes the statement, but tells us that the king -was struck down just as he was about, we gather, to march south. As it -was at Northampton that this took place he must have been following the -very same road as he had done at this same time of year in 1138.[497] -Nor can we doubt that his objective was Oxford, now again the -head-quarters of his foe.[498] So alarming was his illness that his -death was rumoured, and the forces he had gathered were dismissed to -their homes.[499] - -But, meanwhile, where was Earl Geoffrey? We have seen that early in the -year he was present with Stephen at Ipswich.[500] If we turn to the _Ely -History_, printed in Wharton's _Anglia Sacra_, we shall find evidence -that he was, shortly after, despatched with Earl Gilbert of Pembroke, -who had been with him at Ipswich, to Ely.[501] When Stephen had -successfully attacked Ely two years before (1140), the bishop had fled, -with three companions, to the Empress at Gloucester. His scattered -followers had now reassembled, and it was to expel them from their -stronghold in the isle that Stephen despatched the two earls. Geoffrey -soon put them to flight, doubtless at Aldreth, and setting his prisoners -on horseback, with their feet tied together, led them in triumph to -Ely.[502] To the monks, who came forth to meet him with their crosses -and reliquaries, he threatened plunder and death, and their possessions -were at once seized into the king's hands. But, meanwhile, their -bishop's envoy to the pope, "a man skilled in the use of Latin, French, -and English," had returned from Rome with letters to the primates of -England and Normandy, insisting that Nigel should be restored to his -see. The monks, also, had approached Stephen and obtained from him a -reversal of Geoffrey's violent action. Nigel, therefore, returned to -Ely, to the joy, we are told, of his monks and people; and the two earls -delivered into his hands the isle and Aldreth, its key.[503] - -The point to insist upon, for our own purpose, is that the Earls -Geoffrey and Gilbert were both concerned in this business, and that -their names will again be found in conjunction in the records of that -intrigue with the Empress which is the subject of the next chapter. - -[432b] _Ninth Report Hist. MSS._, App. i. p. 62 _b_. - -[433] "Regem ipsum in concilium introisse" (_Will. Malms._, 755). - -[434] "Ipsam quæcunque pepigerat ad ecclesiarum jus pertinentia -obstinate fregisse" (_ibid._). - -[435] "Deum, pro sua clementia, secus quam ipsa sperasset vertisse -negotia" (_ibid._). - -[436] Dr. Stubbs well observes of this coronation of Richard: "His -second coronation was understood to have an important significance. He -had by his captivity in Germany ... impaired or compromised his dignity -as a crowned king. The Winchester coronation was not intended to be a -reconsecration, but a solemn assertion that the royal dignity had -undergone no diminution" (_Const. Hist._, i. 504). - -[437] "Die qua primum coronatus fui" (_Cartulary of Abingdon_, ii. 181). - -[438] "Cantia quam solam casus non flexerat regius" (_Will. Newburgh_, -i. 41). - -[439] _Thirty-first Report of Deputy Keeper_, p. 3 (based on the late -Sir William Hardy's register of these charters). Mr. Birch, in his -learned paper on the seals of King Stephen, also assigns these limits to -the charter. - -[440] "Meldona." This manor, and those which follow are the same, with -the addition of 'Inga' and 'Phingria,' as had been granted Geoffrey by -the Empress to make up his £100 a year. Thus these two manors represent -the "si quid defuerit ad C libratas perficiendas" of the Empress's -charters. Maldon itself had, we saw (p. 102), been held by Stephen's -brother Theobald, forfeited by the Empress on her triumph, and granted -by her to Geoffrey. Theobald's possession is further proved by a writ -among the archives of Westminster (printed in Madox's _Baronia Anglica_, -p. 232), in which Stephen distinctly states (1139) that he had given it -him. Thus, in giving it to Geoffrey, he had to despoil his own brother. - -[441] The "Phenge" and "Inga" of Domesday (ii. 71 _b_, 72 _a_), which -were part of the fief of Randulf Peverel ("of London"). - -[442] Writtle was ancient demesne of the Crown (Pipe-Roll, 31 Hen. I.). -Its _redditus_, at the Survey, was "c libras ad pondus et c solidos de -gersumâ." - -[443] Hatfield Broadoak, _alias_ Hatfield Regis. This also was ancient -demesne, its _redditus_, at the Survey, being "lxxx libras et c solidos -de gersumâ." Here the Domesday _redditus_ remained unchanged, an -important point to notice. - -[444] Robert de Baentonâ was lord of Bampton, co. Devon. He occurs in -the Pipe-Roll of 31 Hen. I. (p. 153, 154). He is identical with the -Robert "de Bathentona" whose rebellion against Stephen is narrated at -some length in the _Gesta_. His lands were forfeited for that rebellion, -and consequently appear here as an escheat (see my note on him in -_English Historical Review_, October, 1890). - -[445] Rainham, on the Thames, in South Essex. It had formed part of the -Domesday (_D. B._, ii. 91) barony of Walter de Douai, to whose Domesday -fief Robert de Baentonâ had succeeded. - -[446] Great Holland, in Essex, adjacent to Clacton-on-Sea. It had -similarly formed part of the Domesday barony of Walter de Douai. - -[447] Amberden, in Depden, with which it had been held by Randulf -Peverel at the Survey. - -[448] Woodham Mortimer, Essex. This also had been part of the fief of -Randulf Peverel. - -[449] Easton, Essex. Geoffrey de Mandeville had held land, at the Survey -in (Little) Easton. - -[450] Picard de Domfront occurs in the Pipe-Roll of 31 Hen. I. as a -landowner in Wilts and Essex (pp. 22, 53). - -[451] Ickleton, Cambridgeshire, on the borders of Essex, the -"Ichilintone" of Domesday (in which it figures), was _Terra Regis_. In -the _Liber Niger_ (special inquisition), however (p. 394), it appears as -part of the honour of Boulogne. - -[452] Anstey, Herts, the "Anestige" of Domesday, part of the honour of -Boulogne. - -[453] Braughing, Herts, the "Brachinges" of Domesday. Also part of the -honour of Boulogne. - -[454] Possibly that portion of Ham (East and West Ham), Essex, which -formed part of the fief of Randulf Peverel. - -[455] On Graaland de Tany, see p. 91. - -[456] Brien fitz Ralf may have been a son of the Ralf fitz Brien who -appears in Domesday as an under-tenant of Randulf Peverel. According to -the inquisition on the honour of Peverel assigned to 13th John, "Brien -filius Radulfi" held five fees of the honour, the very number here -given. - -[457] William de Tresgoz appears in the Pipe-Roll of 31 Hen. I. as a -landowner in Essex (where the family held Tolleshunt Tregoz of the -honour of Peverel) and elsewhere. He was then fermor of the honour of -Peverel. In the above inquisition "William de Tregoz" holds six fees of -the honour. - -[458] William "de Boevilla" (_sic_) appears in the same roll as a -landowner in Essex (pp. 53, 60), and William "de Bosevill" (_sic_) is -found in (Hearne's) _Liber Niger_ (p. 229) as a tenant of the Earl of -Essex (1½ fees de vet. fef.). But what is here granted is the manor of -Springfield Hall, which William de Boseville held of the honour of -Peverel "of London," by the service of two knights. Mathew Peverel, the -Tresgoz family, and the Mauduits were all tenants of the same honour. - -[459] Mathew Peverel similarly appears in the Pipe-Roll of 31 Hen. I. as -holding land in Essex and Norfolk. In the above inquisition William -Peverel holds five fees of the honour. - -[460] Elmdon (Essex) had been held of Eustace of Boulogne at the Survey -by Roger de Someri, ancestor of the family of that name seated there. -Stephen was of course entitled to their _servicium_ in right of his -wife. Adam de Sumeri held seven fees of the Earl of Essex in 1166. - -[461] Possibly the _Ralph_ Brito who appears in the Pipe-Rolls of -Hen. II. as holding _terræ datæ_ "in Chatelegâ," and who also figures as -"Ralph le Bret," under Essex, in the _Liber Niger_ (p. 242), and as -Radulfus Brito, a tenant of Robert de Helion (_ibid._, p. 240). - -[462] Duchy of Lancaster, _Royal Charters_, No. 18. - -[463] This same principle is well illustrated by two _cartæ_ which -follow one another in the pages of the _Liber Niger_. They are those of -"Willelmus filius Johannis _de Herpetreu_" and "Willelmus filius -Johannis _de Westona_." Here the suffix (which in such cases is rather a -crux to genealogists) clearly distinguishes the two Williams, and is not -the appellation of their respective fathers (as it sometimes is). This -leads us to such styles as "Beauchamp de Somerset" and "Beauchamp de -Warwick," "Willoughby d'Eresby" and "Willoughby de Beke." Many similar -instances are to be found in writs of summons, and, applying the above -principle, we see that, in all cases, the suffix must originally have -been added for the sake of distinction only. - -[464] See p. 120. - -[465] Of the absentees, the Earl of Chester and his half-brother the -Earl of Lincoln will be found accounted for below, as will also the Earl -of Warwick; the Earl of Leicester was absent, like his brother the Count -of Meulan, but he generally, as here, held aloof; the Earls of -Gloucester, Cornwall, Devon, and Hereford were, of course, with the -Empress. Thus, with the nine mentioned in the charter, we account for -some eighteen earls. - -[466] See Appendix M, on the latter earldom. - -[467] See p. 49, _n._ 4. - -[468] _Add. MSS._, 31,943, fol. 85 dors. - -[469] _Colchester Cartulary_ (Stowe MSS.). See also p. 406. - -[470] As by Mr. Eyton (_Addl. MSS._, 31,943, fol. 96). The said Robert -appears in the latter part of this reign as "Robertus filius Alberici de -Ver" (_Report on MSS. of Wells Cathedral_, p. 133), and sent in his -_carta_ in 1166 as "Robertus filius Alberici Camerarii," not as Robert -de Vere. - -[471] _Abingdon Cartulary_, ii. 179. - -[472] See Appendix N, on "Robert de Vere." - -[473] See _Ord. Vit._, v. 52 (where the French editors affiliate him -wrongly). - -[474] "Tunc, quia rex Stephanus festivâ carebat voce, Baldewino filio -Gilleberti, magnæ nobilitatis viro et militi fortissimo, sermo -exhortatorius ad universum cœtum injunctus est.... Capitur etiam -Baldewinus qui orationem fecerat persuasoriam, multis confossus -vulneribus, multis contritus ictibus, ubi egregie resistendo gloriam -promeruit sempiternam" (_Hen. Hunt._, pp. 271, 274). - -[475] See Appendix O: "Tower and Castle." - -[476] "Reddendo mihi rectam firmam que inde reddi solebat die quâ rex -Henricus pater meus fuit vivus et mortuus." Perhaps this indefinite -phrase was due to the fact that Essex and Herts had a _joint_ firma at -the time (see _Rot. Pip._, 31 Hen. I.). - -[477] "Eadem firma qua avus ejus ... tenuit." - -[478] "Pro CCC libris sicut idem Gaufredus avus ejus tenuit." - -[479] The _firma_ of Essex with _Herts_, in 1130, was £420 3_s._ "ad -pensum," _plus_ £26 17_s._ "numero," _plus_ £86 19_s._ 9_d._ "blancas," -whereas Geoffrey secured the two for £360. The difference between this -sum and the joint _firma_ of 1130 curiously approximates that at London -(see Appendix, p. 366, _n._). - -[480] Pearson's _History of England during the Early and Middle Ages_, -i. 664 ("County Rentals in Domesday"). - -[481] See Appendix P: "The Early Administration of London." - -[482] _Historic Towns: London_ (1887). - -[483] The two omitted portions amount to but a few lines. There is, -however, an error in each. The first implies that the charter to -Geoffrey was granted before the Empress reached, or was even invited to, -London. The second contains the erroneous statement that the Empress, on -her flight from London, "withdrew towards Winchester," and that her -brother was captured by the Londoners in pursuit, whereas he was not -captured till after the siege of Winchester, later in the year, and -under different circumstances. - -[484] It looks much as if Mr. Loftie had here again attempted to -separate London from Middlesex, and to treat the former as granted "in -demesne," and the latter "in farm." Such a conception is quite -erroneous. - -[485] It was his grandfather and not (as Mr. Loftie writes) his "father" -who "is said by Stow to have been portreeve." - -[486] See p. 99. - -[487] "Et computabitur tibi ad scaccarium" is the regular form found in -the precepts of Henry II. (_Dialogus_, ii. 8). - -[488] See also, for Stephen's attitude towards the "adulterine" castles, -the _Gesta Stephani_ (p. 66): "Plurima adulterina castella, alia solâ -adventus sui famâ vacuata, alia viribus virtuose adhibitis conquisita -subvertit: omnesque circumjacentes provincias, quas castella -inhabitantes intolerabili infestatione degravabant, purgavit tunc -omnino, et quietissima reddidit" (1140). - -[489] See p. 103. - -[490] Note here the figures 60, 20, 10, as confirming the theory -advanced by me in the _English Historical Review_ (October, 1891) as to -knight-service being grouped in multiples of ten (the _constabularia_). - -[491] See Appendix H. - -[492] _Gervase of Canterbury_, i. 123. - -[492b] "Semper quippe horrori habui aliquid ad posteros transmittendum -stylo committere, quod nescirem solidâ veritate subsistere. Ea porro, -quæ de præsenti anno dicenda, hoc habebunt principium." - -[493] "Post Pascha Stephanus, prosequente eum reginâ suâ Mathilde, venit -Eboracum militaresque nundinas a Willelmo comite Eboraci et Alano comite -de Richemunt adversus alterutrum conductas solvit; habuitque in votis -pristinas suas injurias ultum ire, et regnum ad antiquam dignitatem et -integritatem reformare" (_Sym. Dun._, ii. 312). Notice that John of -Hexham always speaks of Alan as Earl "of Richmond" and William as Earl -"of York." He is probably the first writer to speak of an Earl "of -Richmond," and this early appearance of the title was clearly unknown to -the Lords' committee when they drew up their elaborate account of its -origin and descent (_Third Report on the Dignity of a Peer_). If, as I -believe, no county could, at this period, have two earls, it follows -that either Alan "Comes" did not hold an English earldom, and was merely -described as of Richmond because that was his seat; or, that -"Richmondshire" was, at that time, treated as a county of itself. One or -other of these alternatives must, I think, be adopted. But see also p. -290, _n._ 2. - -[494] _Harl. MS._, 2044, fol. 55 _b_; _Addl. MSS._, 5516, No. 9, p. 7 -(printed in _Archæologia Cantiana_, x. 272, but not in Dugdale's -_Monasticon_). - -[495] Robert de Crevecœur and William de Eynsford. The Count of Eu was a -benefactor to the priory. - -[496] _Thirty-first Report of Deputy Keeper_, p. 2. - -[497] He held a council at Northampton on his way south in Easter week, -1138. - -[498] William of Malmesbury writes: "In ipsis Paschalibus feriis regem -quædam (ut aiunt) dura meditantem gravis incommodum morbi apud -Northamptunam detinuit, adeo ut in tota propemodum Angliâ sicut mortuus -conclamaretur" (p. 763). There is a discrepancy of date between this -statement and that of John of Hexham, who states that Stephen did not -reach York till "post Pascha." William's chronology seems the more -probable. - -[499] "Præventus vero infirmitate copias militum quas contraxerat -remisit ad propria" (_Sym. Dun._, ii. 312). - -[500] _Supra_, p. 158. - -[501] "Dirigitur enim in Ely a rege Stephano cum militari manu in armis -strenuus Comes Gaufridus de Mannavillâ, associante ei Comite Gileberto, -ut homines episcopi, qui tunc latenter affugerent, inde abigeret, aut -gladiis truncaret" (_Anglia Sacra_, i. 621). Earl Gilbert was uncle to -Earl Geoffrey's wife. - -[502] "Qui festinus adveniens, hostilem turbam fugavit; milites vero -teneri jussit; et equis impositos pedes eorum sub equis ligatos -spectante populo usque in Ely perduxit" (_ibid._). - -[503] See Appendix Z: "Bishop Nigel at Rome." - - - - - CHAPTER VIII. - THE SECOND CHARTER OF THE EMPRESS. - - -We left, it may be remembered, the Empress and her supporters assembled -at Bristol, apparently towards the close of the year 1141. Their -movements are now somewhat obscure, and the hopes of the Empress had -been so rudely shattered, that for a time her party were stunned by the -blow. We gather, however, from William of Malmesbury that Oxford became -her head-quarters,[504] and it was at Oxford that she granted the -charter which forms the subject of this chapter. - -From internal evidence it is absolutely certain that this charter is -subsequent to that dealt with in the last chapter. That is to say, it -must be dated subsequent to Christmas, 1141. But it is also certain, -from the fact that the Earl of Gloucester is a witness, that it must -have passed previous to his departure from England at the end of June, -1142.[505] - -It may, at first sight, excite surprise that, after having extorted such -concessions from Stephen, Geoffrey should so quickly turn to his rival, -more especially when Stephen appeared triumphant, and the chances of his -rival desperate. But, on the one hand, in accordance with his persistent -policy, he hoped, by the offer of a fresh treason, to secure from the -Empress an even higher bid than that which he had wrung from Stephen; -and, on the other, the very weakness of the Empress, he must have seen, -would place her more completely at his mercy. In short, he now virtually -aspired to the _rôle_ of "the king-maker" himself.[506] - -Even he, however, strong though he was, could scarcely have attempted to -stem the tide, while the flood of reaction was at its height. He -watched, no doubt, for the first signs of an ebb in Stephen's triumph. -It was not long before this ebb came in the form of that illness by -which the king, as we saw, was struck down about the end of April, on -his way south, at Northampton.[507] The dismissal of the host he had so -eagerly collected was followed by a rumour of his death.[508] No one, it -would seem, has ever noticed the strange parallel between this illness -and that of 1136. In each case it was about the end of April that the -king was thus seized, and in each case his seizure gave rise to a -widespread rumour of his death.[509] On the previous occasion that -rumour had been followed by an outburst of treason and revolt,[510] and -it is surely, to say the least, not improbable that it now gave the sign -for which Geoffrey was watching, and led to the extraordinary charter -with which we have here to deal. - -The movements of the Empress have also to be considered in their bearing -on the date of the charter. We learn from William of Malmesbury that she -held two councils at Devizes, one about the 1st of April (Mid-Lent), and -one at Whitsuntide (7-14 June). The latter council was held on the -return of the envoys who had been despatched, after the former one, to -request Geoffrey of Anjou to come to his wife's assistance. Geoffrey had -replied that the Earl of Gloucester must first come over to him, and the -earl accordingly sailed from Wareham about the end of June. It is most -probable that he went there straight from Devizes, in which case he was -not at Oxford after the beginning of June. In this case, that is the -latest date at which the charter can have passed. - -Although the original of this charter cannot, like its predecessor of -the previous year, be traced down to this very day, we have the -independent authorities of Dugdale and of another transcriber for the -fact that it was duly recorded in the Great Coucher of the duchy.[511] -If the missing volume, or volumes, of that work should come to light, I -cannot entertain the slightest doubt that this charter will be found -there entered. Collateral evidence in its favour is forthcoming from -another quarter, for the record with which, as I shall show, it is so -closely connected that the two form parts of one whole, has its -existence proved by cumulative independent evidence. - -I have taken for my text, in this instance, the fine transcript from the -Great Coucher in _Lansd. MS._ 229 (fol. 109), with which I have collated -Dugdale's transcript, among his MSS. at Oxford (L. 19), "ex magno -registro in officio Ducatus Lancastrie." I have also collated another -transcript which is among the Dodsworth MSS. (xxx. 113), and which was -made in 1649. It is, unfortunately, incomplete. Yet another transcriber -began to copy the charter, but stopped almost at once.[512] I have given -in the notes the variants (which are slight) in the Dodsworth and -Dugdale transcripts. - - "Carta M. Imperatricis facta Com̃ Gaufredo Essexiæ de - pluribus terris et libertatibus. - -M. Imperatrix. H. regis filia et Anglorum Domina. Archiepiscopis.[513] -Episcopis. Abbatibus. Comitibus. Baronibus. Justiciariis. Vicecomitibus. -Ministris. et omnibus fidelibus suis Francis et Anglis totius Angliæ et -Normanniæ Salutem. Sciatis me reddidisse et concessisse Comiti -Gaufr[edo] Essexe omnia tenementa sua, sicut Gaufredus avus suus,[514] -aut Willelmus pater suus,[515] aut ipsemet postea unquam melius vel -liberius tenuerit[516] aliquo tempore in feodo et hæreditate sibi et -hæredibus suis, ad tenendum de me et de hæredibus meis. Videlicet in -terris et turribus, in Castellis et Bailliis. Et nominatim Turrim -Lund[oniæ] cum Castello quod subtus[517] est, ad firmandum et -efforciandum ad voluntatem suam. Et Vicecomitatum Lund[oniæ][518] et -Middelsex per CCC lib[ras] sicut Gaufredus auus eius tenuit. Et -vicecomitatum Essex per CCC lib[ras] sicut idem Gaufredus auus eius -tenuit.[519] Et vicecomitatum de Heortfordscirâ per LX libras sicut avus -eius tenuit. Et præter hoc do et concedo eidem Gaufredo quod habeat -hæreditabiliter Justiciã Lund[oniæ] et Middelsex et Essex et de -Hertfordscirâ, ita quod nulla alia justicia placitet in hiis supradictis -vicecomitatibus nisi per eis[520] [_sic_]. Et concedo illi,[521] ut -habeat illas C libratas terræ quas dedi illi, et servicium illorum XX -militum sicut illud ei dedi et per aliam cartam meam confirmavi. Et -illas CC libratas terræ quas Rex Stephanus et Matildis regina ei -dederunt. Et illas C libratas terræ de terris Eschaetis quas idem Rex et -Regina ei dederunt, et servicium militum quod ei dederunt, sicut habet -inde cartas illorum. Et do ei totam terram quæ fuit[522] Eudonis -Dapiferi in Normanniâ et Dapiferatum ipsius. Et hæc reddo ei ut Rectum -suum ut habeat et teneat hæreditabiliter, ita ne ponatur inde in -placitum versus aliquem. Et si dominus meus Comes Andegaviæ et ego -voluerimus, Comes Gaufredus accipiet pro dominiis et terris quas habet -Eschaetis et pro servicio militum[523] quod habet totam terram quæ fuit -Eudonis Dapiferi in Anglia sicut tenuit ea die qua fuit et vivus et[524] -mortuus, quia hoc est Rectum suum, Præter illas[525] libratas terræ quas -ego dedi ei Et præter seruicium XX militum quod ei dedi, Et præter -terram Ernulfi de Mannavill sicut eam tenet de Comite Gaufredo ex -servicio X militum Et si potero perquirere erga Episcopum Lund[oniæ] et -erga ecclesiam Sancti Pauli Castellum de Storteford per Escambium ad -Gratum suum tunc do et concedo illud ei et hæredibus suis in feodo et -hereditate tenendum de me et hæredibus meis. Quod si facere non potero, -tunc ei convenciono quod faciam illud prosternere et ex toto cadere. Et -concedo quod Ernulf[us] de Mannavill teneat illas C libratas terræ quas -ei dedi, et servicium X militum de Comite Gaufredo patre suo. Et præter -hoc do et concedo eidem Ernulfo C libratas terræ de terris Eschaetis Et -servicium X militum ad tenendum de domino meo Comite Andegau[ie] et de -me in capite hæreditarie sibi et hæredibus suis de nobis et de hæredibus -nostris videlicet Cristeshalam[526] et Benedis[527] pro quanto valent. -Et superplus perficiam ei per considerationem Comitis Gaufredi. Et -convenciono eidem Gaufredo Comiti Essex quod dominus meus Comes -Andegauie vel ego vel filii nostri nullam pacem aut concordiam cum -Burgensibus Lund[oniæ] faciemus, nisi concessu et assensu prædicti -Comitis Gaufredi quia inimici eius sunt mortales. Concedo etiam eidem -Gaufredo quod novum castellum quod firmavit super Lviam[528] stet et -remaneat ad efforciandum ad voluntatem suam. Concedo etiam ei quod -firmet unum Castellum ubicunque voluerit in terrâ suâ sicut ei per aliam -cartam meam concessi, et quod stet et remaneat. Concedo etiam eidem -Gaufredo quod ipse et omnes homines sui habeant et lucrentur omnia -essarta sua libera et quieta de omnibus placitis facta usque ad diem qua -servicio domini mei Comitis Andegavie ac meo adhesit. Hæc autem omnia -supradicta tenementa in omnibus rebus concedo ei tenenda hæreditarie -sibi et hæredibus suis de me et hæredibus meis. Quare volo et firmiter -præcipio quod ipse Gaufredus comes et hæredes sui teneant hæc omnia -supradicta tenementa ita bene et in pace et libere et quiete et -honorifice et plenarie sicut unquam aliquis Comitum meorum totius Angliæ -melius vel liberius tenuit vel tenet Et præter hoc dedi Willelmo filio -Otueɫ[529] fratri ejusdem Comitis Gaufredi C libratas terræ de terris -Escaetis tenendis de me et de hæredibus meis in feudo et hæreditate pro -seruicio suo, et pro amore fratris sui Comitis Gaufredi. Concedo etiam -quod Willelmus de Sai[530] habeat omnes terras et tenementa quæ fuerunt -patris sui, et ipse et hæredes sui, et quod Willelmus Cap'.[531] habeat -terram patris sui sine placito et ipse et hæredes sui. Concedo etiam -eidem Comiti Gaufredo quod Willelmus filius Walteri[531] et hæredes sui -habeant custodiam Castelli de Windesh' et omnia sua tenementa sicut ipse -Willelmus et antecessores sui eam habuerunt de Rege H. patre meo et -antecessoribus ipsius. Et quod Matheus de Rumilli[533] habeat terram -patris sui quam Gaufridus de Turevill[534] tenet. Et Willelmus de -Auco[535] habeat Lauendonam sicut Rectum suum hæreditarie. Concedo etiam -eidem Comiti Gaufredo quod omnes homines sui teneant terras et tenementa -sua de quocunque teneant sine placito et sine pecuniæ donatione et ut -Rectum eis teneatur de eorum Calumpnijs sine pecuniæ donatione Et quod -Osb[ertus] Octod[enarii][536] habeat illas XX libratas terræ quas ei -dedi et confirmaui per cartam meam. - -"Hanc[537] autem convencionem et donationem tenendam affidavi manu mea -propria in manu ipsius Comitis Gaufredi. Et hujus fiduciæ sunt obsides -per fidem et Testes Robertus Comes Gloec': et Milo Com' Heref':[538] et -Brianus filius Comitis: et Rob' fil' Reg':[539] et Rob' de Curc' -Dap:[540] et Joh'es filius Gisleberti:[541] et Milo de Belloc':[542] et -Rad' Paganell:[543] et Rob' de Oilli Conest':[544] et Rob' fil' -Heldebrand'.[545] - -"Et[546] convencionavi eidem Comiti Gaufredo pro posse meâ quod Comes -Andegavie dominus meus assecurabit ei manu sua propria illud idem[547] -tenendum et Henricus filius meus similiter. Et quod rex Franciæ erit -inde[548] obses si facere potero. Et si non potero, faciam quod ipse Rex -capiet in manu illud tenendum. Et de hoc debent esse obsides per fidem: -Juhel de Moduana,[549] et Robertus de Sabloill et Wido de Sabloill[550] -et Pagan' de Clarevall'[551] et Gaufredus de Clarevall' et Andreas de -Aluia:[552] et Pipinus de Turon': et Absalon Rumarch'[553] et Reginaldus -comes Cornubiæ et Balduinus Comes Devon': et Gislebertus Comes de -Penbr': et Comes Hugo de Norff': et Comes Albericus: et Henricus de -Essex: et Petrus de Valon':[554] et alii Barones mei quos habere -voluerit et ego habere potero, erunt inde obsides similiter. Et quod -x'rianitas Angliæ quæ est in potestate meâ capiet in manu istam -supradictam conventionem tenendam eidem Comiti[555] Gaufredo et -hæredibus suis de me et de hæredibus meis. Apud Oxineford.[556] - -"Sub magno sigillo dictæ Matildis Imperatricis." - -Let us now, in accordance with the guiding principle on which I have -throughout insisted, compare this charter _seriatim_ with those by which -it was preceded, with a view to ascertaining what further concessions -the unscrupulous earl had won by this last change of front. We shall -find that, as we might expect, it marks a distinct advance. - -The earlier clauses do little more than specifically confirm the -privileges and possessions that he had inherited from his father or had -already wrung from the eager rivals for the Crown. This was by no means -needless so far as the Empress was concerned, for his desertion of her -cause since her previous charter involved, as an act of treason, his -forfeiture at her hands. These are followed by a new grant, namely, -"totam terram quæ fuit Eudonis Dapiferi in Normannia et Dapiferatum -ipsius," with a conditional proposal that Geoffrey should also, in -exchange for the grants he had already received, obtain that portion of -the Dapifer's fief which lay in England. The large estate which this -successful minister had accumulated in the service of the Conqueror and -his sons had escheated to the Crown at his death, and is entered -accordingly in the Pipe-Roll of 31 Hen. I. This has an important bearing -on the noteworthy admission in the charter that Geoffrey is to receive -the Dapifer's fief not as a gift, but as his right ("rectum suum"). This -expression is referred to by Mr. Eyton in his MSS., as placing beyond -doubt the received statement that Geoffrey was maternally a grandson of -the Dapifer, whose daughter and heiress Margaret had married his father -William. But this statement is taken from Dugdale, who derived it solely -from the _Historia Fundationis_ of St. John's Abbey, Colchester, a -notoriously inaccurate and untrustworthy document printed in the -_Monasticon_. The fact that this fief escheated to the Crown, instead of -passing to the Mandevilles with the Dapifer's alleged daughter, is -directly opposed to a story which has no foundation of its own.[557] - -The next clause to be noticed is that which refers to Bishop's -Stortford. It implies a peculiar antipathy to this castle on the part of -Earl Geoffrey, an antipathy explained by the fact of its position, lying -as it did on the main road from London to (Saffron) Walden, and thus -cutting communications between his two strongholds. We have a curious -allusion to this episcopal castle a few years before (1137), when Abbot -Anselm of St. Edmund's, who claimed to have been elected to the see, -seized and held it.[558] - -The next additional grant made in this charter is that of "C libratas -terræ de terris eschaetis et servicium X militum" to the earl's son -Ernulf. This is followed by what is certainly the most striking clause -in the whole charter, that which binds the Empress and her husband "to -make no peace and come to no terms with the burgesses (_sic_) of London, -without the permission and assent of the said Earl Geoffrey, because -they are his mortal foes." Comment on the character of such a pledge on -the part of one who claimed the crown, or on the light it throws on -Geoffrey's doings, is surely needless. - -The clauses relating to Geoffrey's castles are deserving of special -attention on account of the important part which the castle played in -this great struggle. The erection of unlicensed ("adulterine") castles -and their rapid multiplication throughout the land is one of the most -notorious features of the strife, and one for which Stephen's weakness -has been always held responsible. It is evident, however, from these -charters that the Crown struggled hard against the abdication of its -right to control the building of castles, and that even when reduced to -sore straits, both Stephen and the Empress made this privilege the -subject of special and limited grant. By this charter the earl secures -the license of the Empress for a new castle which he had erected on the -Lea. He may have built it to secure for himself the passage of the -river, it being for him a vital necessity to maintain communication -between the Tower of London and his ancestral stronghold in Essex. But -the remainder of the passage involves a doubt. The Empress professes to -repeat the permission in her former charter that he may construct one -permanent castle, in addition to those he has already, anywhere within -his fief. Yet a careful comparison of this permission with that -contained in her former charter, and that which was granted by Stephen, -in his charter between the two, proves that she was really confirming -what he, not she, had granted. - - MAUD (1141). - - "Et præterea concedo illi ut castella sua que habet stent ei et - remaneant ad inforciandum ad voluntatem suam." - - STEPHEN. - - "Et præterea firmiter ei concessi ut possit firmare quoddam castellum - ubicunque voluerit in terra sua, et quod stare possit." - - MAUD (1142). - - "Concedo etiam ei quod firmet unum castellum ubicunque voluerit in - terra sua, _sicut ei per aliam cartam meam concessi_, et quod stet et - remaneat." - -As we can trace, in every other instance, the relation of the various -charters without difficulty or question, it would seem that we have here -to do with an error, whether or not intentional. - -We then come to the clauses in favour of Geoffrey's relatives and -friends. This is a novel feature which we cannot afford to overlook. It -is directly connected with the question of that important De Vere -charter to which we shall shortly come. - -Lastly, there is the remarkable arrangement for securing the validity of -the charter. Let us look at this closely.[559] We should first notice -that the Empress describes it, not as a charter, but as a "convencio et -donatio." Now this "convencio" is a striking term, for it virtually -denotes a treaty between two contracting powers. This conception of -treaty relations between the Crown and its subjects is one of the marked -peculiarities of this singular reign. It is clearly foreshadowed in -those noteworthy charters which the powerful Miles of Gloucester secured -from Stephen at his accession, and it meets us again in the negotiations -between the youthful Henry of Anjou, posing as the heir to the crown, -and the great nobles, towards the close of this same reign. It is in -strict accordance with this idea that we here find the Empress naming -those who were to be her sureties for her observance of this -"convencio," precisely as was done in the case of a treaty between -sovereign powers.[560] The exact part which the King of France was to -play in this transaction is not as clear as could be wished, but the -expression "capere in manu" is of course equivalent to his becoming her -"manucaptor," and "tenere" is here used in the sense of "to hold -good."[561] The closing words in which "the Lady of England" declared -that all the Church of Christ then beneath her sway shall undertake to -be responsible for her keeping faith, present a striking picture: but -yet more vivid, in its dramatic intensity, is that of the undaunted -Empress, the would-be Queen of the English, standing in her -water-girdled citadel, surrounded by her faithful followers, and -playing, as it were, her last card, as she placed her hand, in token of -her faith, in the grip of the Iron Earl.[562] - -It was only, indeed, the collapse, to all appearance, of her fortunes, -that could have tempted Geoffrey to demand, or have induced the Empress -to concede, terms so preposterously high. The fact that she was hoping, -at this moment, to allure her husband to her side, that he might join -her in a crowning effort, explains her eagerness to secure allies, at -the cost of whatever sacrifice, and also, in consequence, the anxiety of -those allies to bind her to her promises hard and fast. It further -throws light on the constant reference throughout this charter to -Geoffrey of Anjou and his son. - -Turning to the names of her proposed sureties, we find among them five -earls, of whom the Earls of Norfolk and of Pembroke invite special -notice. The former had played a shifty part from the very beginning of -the reign. He appears to have really fought for his own hand alone, and -we find him, the year after this, joining the Earl of Essex in his wild -outburst of revolt. With Pembroke the case was different. He had been -among the nobles who, the Christmas before, had assembled at Stephen's -court, and had attested the charter there granted to the Earl of Essex. -He may, in the interval, have quarrelled with Stephen and joined the -party of the Empress; but I think the occurrence of his name may be -referred, with more probability, to another cause, that of his family -ties. It is, indeed, to family ties that we must now turn our attention. - -The Earl of Essex had included, as we have seen, in his demands on this -occasion, provisions in favour of certain of his relatives, including -apparently his sisters' husbands. But these by no means exhausted the -concessions he had resolved to exact. He had come prepared to offer the -Empress the support, not only of himself, but of a powerful kinsman and -ally. This was his wife's brother, Aubrey de Vere. - -It will be better to relegate to an appendix the relationship of these -two families, without a clear understanding of which it is impossible to -grasp Geoffrey's scheme, or to interpret aright these charters in their -relation to one another, and in their bearing as parts of a connected -whole. Unfortunately, the errors of past genealogists have rendered it a -task of some difficulty to ascertain the correct pedigree.[563] - -When the fact has been established on a sure footing that Aubrey stood -in the relation of wife's brother to Geoffrey, we may turn to the -charter upon which my narrative is here founded. - -This is a charter of the Empress to Aubrey at Oxford. Mr. Eyton had, of -course, devoted his attention to this, as to the other charters, in his -special studies on the subject, but his fatal mistake in assigning both -this and the above charter to Geoffrey to the year 1141 deprives his -conclusions of all value. We may note, however, that he argued from the -mention, in the charter granted to Geoffrey, of "Earl Aubrey," that it -must, in any case, be subsequent to the charter by which Aubrey was -created an earl. He, therefore, dated the latter as "_circ._ July, -1141," and the former "_circ._ August, 1141" (or "between July 25 and -Aug. 15, 1141").[564] This reasoning could at once be disposed of by -pointing out that the Empress accepted her new ally and supporter as -"Earl Aubrey" already. Of this, however, more below. But the true answer -is to be found in the fact, which Mr. Eyton failed to perceive, that -these two charters were not only granted simultaneously, but formed the -two complements of one connected whole. In the light of this discovery -the whole episode is clear. - -It is now time to give the charter with the grounds for believing in its -existence and authenticity. We have two independent transcripts to work -from. One of them was taken from the Vere register by Vincent in 1622, -and printed by him in his curious _Discoverie of Brook's Errors_. The -other was taken, apparently, in 1621, and was used by Dugdale for his -_Baronage_. Vincent's original transcript is preserved at the College of -Arms, and this I have used for the text. But we have, fortunately, -strong external testimony to the existence of the actual document. There -is printed in Rymer's _Fœdera_ (xiii. 251) a confirmation by Henry VIII. -(May 6, 1509) of this very charter, in which he is careful to state that -it was duly exhibited before him.[565] Thus, from an unexpected source -we obtain the evidence we want. It must further be remembered that our -knowledge of these twin charters comes from two different and -unconnected quarters, one being recorded in the duchy coucher (see p. -165), while the other was found among the muniments of the heir of the -original grantee (see p. 183). If, then, these two independent documents -confirm and explain one another, there is every reason to believe that -their contents are wholly authentic. - - CHARTER OF THE EMPRESS TO AUBREY DE VERE (1142). - -M. Imp'atrix H. Regis filia et Anglorum Domina Archiepiscopis Episcopis -Abbatibus Comitibus Baronibus Justiciariis Vicecomitibus ministris et -omnibus fidelibus suis Francis et Anglis totius Angliæ salutem. Sciatis -me reddidisse et concessisse Comiti Alberico omnes terras et tenementa -sua, sicut pater eius Albericus de Veer tenuit, die quâ fuit vivus et -mortuus, videlicet, in terris, in feodis, in firmis, in ministeriis, in -vadiis, in empcionibus, et hæreditatibus. Et nominatim Camerariam Angliæ -sicut Albericus de Veer pater eius vel Robertus Malet vel aliquis -Antecessorum suorum eam melius vel liberius tenuit cum omnibus -consuetudinibus et libertatibus quæ ad ea pertinent sicut alia Carta mea -quam inde habuit testatur. Et do et concedo ei totam terram Willelmi de -Albrincis sine placito pro seruicio suo, simul cum hæreditate et iure -quod clamat ex parte uxoris sue sicut umquam Willelmus de Archis[566] ea -melius tenuit. Et turrim et Castellum de Colecestr' sine placito -finaliter et sine escampa[567] quam citius ei deliberare potero. Et -omnes tenuras suas de quocunque eas teneat in omnibus rebus sicut Carta -sua alia quam inde habuit testatur. Et preter hoc do ei et concedo quod -sit Comes de Cantebruggescr' et habeat inde tertium denarium sicut Comes -debet habere, ita dico si Rex Scotiæ non habet illum Comitatum. Et si -Rex habuerit perquiram illum ei ad posse meum per escambium. Et si non -potero tunc do ei et concedo quod sit Comes de quolibet quatuor -Comitatuum subscriptorum, videlicet Oxenefordscira, Berkscira, -Wiltescira, et Dorsetscira per consilium et consideracionem Comitis -Gloecestrie fratris mei et Comitis Gaufridi et Comitis Gisleberti et -teneat Comitatum suum cum omnibus illis rebus que ad comitatum suum -pertineat ita bene et in pace et libere et quiete et honorifice et -plenarie sicut unquam aliquis Comes melius vel liberius tenuit vel tenet -comitatum suum. Concedo etiam ei in feodo et hæreditate seruicium -Willelmi de Helion,[568] videlicet decem militum ut ipse Willelmus -teneat de Comite Alberico et ipse Comes faciat inde michi seruicium et -michi et hæredibus meis. Concedo etiam ei et hæredibus suis de cremento -Diham[569] que fuit Rogeri de Ramis[570] rectum nepotum ipsius comitis -Alberici, videlicet filiorum Rogeri de Ramis.[571] Et similiter concedo -ei et heredibus suis Turroc̃[572] que fuit Willelmi Peuerelli de -Nottingh', et terram Salamonis Presbiteri[573] de Tilleberiâ.[574] -Concedo etiam eidem Alberico Comiti quod ipse et omnes homines sui -habeant et lucrentur omnia essarta sua libera et quieta de omnibus -placitis que fecerant usque ad diem quâ seruicio domini mei Comitis -Andegavie et meo adhæserunt.[575] Hec omnia supradicta tenementa -concedo ei tenenda hæreditarie in omnibus rebus sibi et hæredibus suis -de me et de hæredibus meis. Quare volo et firmiter præcipio quod ipse -Albericus Comes et heredes sui teneant omnia tenementa sua ita bene et -in pace et libere et quiete et honorifice et plenarie sicut unquam -aliquis Comitum meorum melius vel liberius tenuit vel tenet et preter -hoc do et concedo Galfrido de Ver totam terram que fuit Galfridi -Talebot[576] in dominiis in militibus si eam ei Warantizare potero. Et -si non potero, escambium ei inde dabo ad valentiam per consideracionem -Comitis Galfridi Essex et Comitis Gisleberti et Comitis Alberici fratris -sui. Et preter hoc concedo Roberto de Ver unam baroniam ad valentiam -honoris Galfridi de Ver infra annum quo potestatiua fuero regni Angliæ. -Vel aliam terram ad valentiam illius terræ. Et preter hoc do et concedo -eidem Comiti Alberico Cancellariam ad opus Willelmi de Ver fratris sui -ex quo deliberata fuerit de Willelmo Cancellario fratre Johannis filii -Gisleberti qui eam modo habet. Hanc autem convencionem et donacionem -tenendam affidaui manu mea propria in manu Galfridi Comitis Essex. Et -hujus fiduciæ sunt obsides per fidem et Testes: Robertus Comes Gloec', -et Milo Comes Heref', et Brianus filius Comitis, et Robertus filius -Regis[577] et Robertus de Curci Dap', et Johannes filius Gisleb', et -Milo de Belloc', et Radulfus Paganel, et Robertus filius Heldebrandi et -Robertus de Oileio Conestabularius. Et Convencionaui eidem Comiti -Alberico quod pro posse meo Comes Andegavie dominus meus assecurabit ei -manu suâ propriâ illud idem tenendum et Henricus filius meus similiter. -Et quod Rex ffrancie erit mihi obses si facere potero Et si non potero, -faciam quod rex capiet in manu illud idem tenendum. Et de hoc debent -esse obsides per fidem Juhel de Meduana et Rob[ertus] de Sabloill et -Wido de Sabloill et Paganus de Clarievall' et Gaufridus de Clarievall et -Andreas de Alvia et Pepinus de Turcin, et Absalon de Ruinard[578] et -Reginaldus Comes Cornubiæ et Baldwinus Comes Deuoniæ et Comes -Gislebertus de Pembroc et Comes Hugo de Norfolc et Comes de Essex -Gaufridus et Patricius[579] (_sic_) de Valoniis, et alii barones mei -quos habere voluerit et ego habere potero erunt inde obsides similiter -et quod Christianitas Angliæ quæ in potestate meâ est capiat in manu -supradictam convencionem tenendam eidem Comiti Alberico et hæredibus -suis de me et hæredibus meis Apud Oxin.[580] - -The first point to which I would call attention is the identity of -expression in the two charters, proving, as I urged above, their close -and essential connection. It may be as well to place the passages to -which I refer side by side. - - CHARTER TO GEOFFREY. - - Hanc autem conventionem et donationem tenendam affidavi manu mea - propria in manu ipsius Comitis Gaufredi. Et hujus fiduciæ sunt obsides - per fidem et Testes, Robertus etc. - - Et conventionavi eidem Comiti Gaufrido pro posse meâ quod Comes - Andegavie dominus meus assecurabit ei manu suâ propriâ illud idem - tenendum et Henricus filius meus similiter, etc., etc. - - CHARTER TO AUBREY. - - Hanc autem conventionem et donationem tenendam affidavi manu mea - propria in manu Galfredi Comitis Essex. Et hujus fiduciæ sunt obsides - per fidem et Testes, Robertus, etc. - - Et conventionavi eidem Comiti Alberico quod pro posse meo Comes - Andegavie dominus meus assecurabit ei manu suâ propriâ illud idem - tenendum et Henricus filius meus similiter, etc., etc. - -Putting together these passages with the fact that the witnesses also -are the same in both charters, we see plainly that these two documents, -while differing from all others of the kind, correspond precisely with -each other. Above all, we note that it was to Geoffrey, not to Aubrey, -that the Empress pledged her faith for the fulfilment of Aubrey's -charter. This shows, as I observed, that Aubrey obtained this charter as -Geoffrey's relative and ally, just as Geoffrey's less important kinsmen -were provided for in his own charter. - -Here we may pause for a moment, before examining this record in detail, -to glance at another which forms its corollary and complement. - -It will have been noticed that in both these charters the Empress -undertook to obtain their confirmation by her husband and her son. We -know not whether the charter to Geoffrey was so confirmed, but -presumably it was. For, happily, in the case of its sister-charter, the -confirmation by the youthful Henry was preserved. And there is every -reason to believe that when this was confirmed the other would be -confirmed also. - -The confirmation by the future King Henry II. of his mother's charter to -Aubrey de Vere may be assigned to July-November, 1142. His uncle Robert -crossed to Normandy shortly after witnessing the original charter, and -returned to England, accompanied by his nephew, about the end of -December.[581] We may assume that no time was lost in obtaining the -confirmation by the youthful heir, and though the names of the witnesses -and the place of testing are, unluckily, omitted in the transcript, the -fact that a Hugh "de Juga" acted as Geoffrey's proxy for the occasion -supports the hypothesis that the confirmation took place over sea. That -we have a confirmation by Henry, but not by his father, is doubtless due -to Geoffrey of Anjou refusing, on this occasion, to come to his wife's -assistance, and virtually, by sending his son in his stead, abdicating -in his favour whatever pretensions he had to the English throne. - -As Henry's charter is printed at the foot of his mother's by Vincent, I -shall content myself with quoting its distinctive features, for the -subject matter is the same except for some verbal differences.[582] -There is some confusion as to the authority for its text. Vincent -transcribed it, like that of the Empress, from the Hedingham Castle -Register. Dugdale, in his _Baronage_, mixes it up with the charter -granted by Henry when king, so that his marginal reference would seem to -apply to the latter. In his MSS., however, he gives as his authority -"Autographum in custodia Johis. Tindall unius magror. Curie cancellarie -temp. Reg. Eliz." If the original charter itself was in existence so -late as this there is just a hope that it may yet be found in some -unexplored collection. From time to time such "finds" are made,[583] and -few discoveries would be more welcome than that of the earliest charter -of one of the greatest sovereigns who have ever ruled these realms, the -first Plantagenet king.[584] - - CHARTER OF HENRY OF ANJOU TO AUBREY DE VERE. - July-November, 1142. - -"Henricus filius filiæ Regis Henrici, rectus heres Angl. et Normann. -etc. Sciatis quod sicut Domina mea, viz. mater mea imperatrix reddidit -et concessit, ita reddo et concedo.... Hanc autem convencionem tenendam -affidavi manu mea propria in manu Hugonis de Juga,[585] sicut mater mea -Imperatrix affidavit in manu Comitis Gaufr. Testibus," etc. - -Henry "fitz Empress" was at this time only nine and a half years old. -The claim he is here made to advance as "rightful heir" of England and -Normandy sounds the key-note of the coming struggle. Not only till he -had obtained the crown, but also after he had obtained it, he steadily -dwelt on his "right" to the throne, of which Stephen had wrongfully -deprived him. - -We should also note that he claims to be "heir" of England and Normandy, -but not of Anjou. I take this to imply that he posed as no mere -heir-expectant, but as one who ought, by right, to be in actual -possession of his realm. He could not, in the lifetime of his father, -assume this attitude to Anjou. Hence its omission. As for his mother, he -seems, from the first, to have claimed her inheritance, as he eventually -obtained it, not for her, but for himself. - -Let us now return to the charter of the Empress. - -It will be best to discuss its successive clauses _seriatim_. The -opening portion, from "Sciatis me reddidisse" to "sicut alia Carta mea -quam inde habuit testatur," is merely a confirmation of her previous -charter, granted, as we learn from this, for the purpose of securing him -in the possession of his father's fief and office of royal chamberlain. -His father, who is said to have been slain in May, 1141, had been -granted the chamberlainship by Henry I. in 1133, the charter being -printed by Madox from Dugdale's transcript. This confirmation repeats -its terms. - -The next portion extends from the words "Et do et concedo" to "sicut -Carta sua alia quam inde habet testatur." About this there is some -obscurity. The word is "do," not "_red_do," and the expression "Carta -sua" replaces "Carta mea." The clause clearly refers to grants made to -Aubrey himself since his father's death, but whether by the king or by -the Empress is not so clear as could be wished. The point need not be -discussed at length, but the former seems the more probable. - -Fortunately, there is no such doubt about the clauses of creation. Here -the question of the formula becomes all-important. The case stands thus. -There are only two instances in the course of this reign in which we can -be quite certain that we are dealing with creations _de novo_. The one -is that by which the king "made" Geoffrey Earl of Essex; the other, that -by which the Empress "made" Miles Earl of Hereford. We know that neither -grantee had been created an earl before; and we find that the sovereign, -in each instance, speaks of having "made" ("fecisse") him an earl.[586] -So, again, in the only instance of a "counter-patent" of creation, of -which we can be quite certain, namely, that by which the Empress -recognized Geoffrey as Earl of Essex after he had received that title -from Stephen, the formula used is: "Do et concedo ut sit Comes." The two -are essentially distinct. Now, applying this principle to the present -charter, we find the latter of the two _formulæ_ employed on this -occasion. The words are: "Do ei et concedo ut sit Comes." We infer, -therefore, if my view be right, that Aubrey was already in enjoyment of -comital rank when he received this charter. It might be, and indeed has -been, supposed that he was so by virtue of a creation by Stephen. I have -noted an instance in which he attests a charter of Stephen (at the siege -of Wallingford) as a "comes,"[587] and it is not likely that Stephen -would allow him this title in virtue of a creation by the Empress. On -the other hand, in this charter the Empress treats him as already a -_comes_, which she does not do in the case of Geoffrey, who had been -created a _comes_ by Stephen.[588] The difference between the two cases -is accounted for by the fact that Aubrey was _comes_ not by a creation -of Stephen, but in right of his wife Beatrice, heiress of the _Comté_ of -Guisnes. This has been clearly explained by Mr. Stapleton in his paper -on "The Barony of William of Arques,"[589] although he is mistaken in -his dates. He wrongly thought, like others, that Aubrey's father, the -chamberlain, was killed in May, 1140, instead of May, 1141, and, like -Mr. Eyton, he wrongly assigned this charter of the empress to 1141, -instead of 1142.[590] His able identification of "Albericus _Aper_" with -Aubrey de Vere may be supplemented by a reference to the fact that "the -blue _boar_" was the badge of the family through a pun on the Latin -_verres_. - -Aubrey was already the husband of Beatrice, the heiress of Guisnes, at -the death of her grandfather Count Manasses (? 1139). He thereupon went -to Flanders and became (says Lambart d'Ardes) Count of Guisnes. -Returning to England, he sought and obtained from Stephen his wife's -English inheritance and executed, as Mr. Stapleton observes, in his -father's lifetime (_i.e._ before May, 1141), the charter printed in -Morant's _Essex_ (ii. 506). Aubrey was divorced from Beatrice a few -years later, when she married (between 1144 and 1146, thinks Mr. -Stapleton) Baldwin d'Ardres, the claimant of Guisnes. Thus did Aubrey -come to be for a time "Count of Guisnes," as recorded, according to -Weever, on his tomb at Colne Priory. - -Mr. Stapleton was unable to produce any English record or chronicle in -which Aubrey is given the style of "Count of Guisnes." It is, therefore, -with much satisfaction that I print, from the original charter, the -following record, conclusively establishing that he actually had that -style:— - - COTT. CHART, xxi. 6. - -"Ordingus dei gratia Abbas ecclesie sancti eadmundi Omnibus hominibus -suis et amicis et fidelibus francis et anglis salutem. Sciatis me -concessisse Alberico comiti Gisnensi per concessum totius conventus -totum feudum et servitium Rogeri de Ver auunculi sui sicut tenet de -honore sancti eadmundi uidelicet per seruitium unius militis et dimidii -et totum feudum et seruitium Alani filii Frodonis sicut tenet de honore -sancti eadmundi uidelicet per seruitium iii militum, et insuper singulis -annis centum solidos ad pascha de camera mea. Hec omnia illi concedo in -feudo et hereditate, ipsi et heredibus suis de ecclesia sancti eadmundi -et de meis successoribus. Quare uolo et firmiter precipio quod idem -Albericus comes Gisnensis et heredes sui jure hereditario teneant de -ecclesia sancti eadmundi bene et honorifice hec supradicta omnia per -seruitium quod supradiximus. Huius donationis sunt testes ex parte mea -Willelmus prior Radulfus sacrista Gotscelinus et Eudo monachi Mauricius -dapifer Gilebertus blundus Adam de cocef' Radulfus de lodn' Willelmus -filius Ailb'. Helias de melef' Gauffridus frater eius. Ex parte comitis, -Gauffridus de ver Robertus filius humfridi Robertus filius Ailr' Garinus -filius Geroldi Hugo de ging' Albericus de capella Radulfus filius Adam -Guarinus frater eius Radulfus de gisnes Gauffridus filius Humfridi -Gauffridus Arsic Rodbertus de cocef' Radulfus carboneal et Hugo filius -eius et plures alii."[591] - -But, to return to Maud's charter, the point which I am anxious to -emphasize is that of the formula she employs, namely, "do et concedo," -as against the "sciatis me fecisse" of an original creation. I trace -this distinction in later years, when her son, who had already, as we -have seen, confirmed this charter to Aubrey, again confirmed it when -king (1156), employing for that purpose the same formula: "Sciatis me -dedisse et concessisse comiti Alberico." Conversely, in the case of Hugh -Bigod, he employs the formula: "Sciatis me fecisse Hugonem Bigot comitem -de Norfolca" (1155), this being an earldom of Stephen's creation, and, -so far as we know, of his alone. This is a view which should be accepted -with caution, but which has, if correct, an important bearing. - -The very remarkable shifting clause as to the county of which the -grantee should be earl requires separate notice. The axiom from which I -start is this: When a feudatory was created an earl, he took if he could -for his "comitatus" the county in which was situated the chief seat of -his power, his "Caput Baroniæ." If this county had an earl already he -then took the nearest county that remained available. Thus Norfolk fell -to Bigod, Essex to Mandeville, Sussex to Albini, Derby to Ferrers, and -so on. De Clare, the seat of whose power was in Suffolk, though closely -adjoining Essex, took Herts, probably for the reason that Mandeville had -already obtained Essex, while Bigod's province, being in truth the old -earldom of the East Angles—"Comes de Estangle," as Henry of Huntingdon -terms him,—took in Suffolk. So now, Aubrey de Vere probably selected -Cambridgeshire as the nearest available county to his stronghold at -Castle Hedingham.[592] - -But the Empress, we see, promised it only on the strange condition that -her uncle was not already in possession. I say "the strange condition," -for one would surely have thought that she knew whether he was or not. -Moreover, the dignity was then held not by her uncle, but by his son, -and is described as the earldom of Huntingdon, never as the earldom of -Cambridge. The first of these difficulties is explained by the fact that -the King of Scots had, early in the reign, made over the earldom to his -son Henry, to avoid becoming himself the "man" of the King of England. -The second requires special notice. - -We are taken back, by this provision, to the days before the Conquest. -Mr. Freeman, in his erudite essay on _The Great Earldoms under Eadward_, -has traced the shifting relations of the counties of Northamptonshire, -Huntingdonshire, Cambridgeshire, and Northumberland. The point, however, -which concerns us here is that, "under William," Earl Waltheof, "besides -his great Northumbrian government, was certainly Earl of Northamptonshire -(_Ord. Vit._, 522 C.), and of Huntingdonshire (_Will. Gem._, viii. -37)."[593] His daughter Matilda married twice, and between the heirs of -these two marriages the contest for her father's inheritance was -obstinate and long. Restricting ourselves to his southern province, with -which alone we have here to deal, its western half, the county of -Northampton, had at this time passed to Simon of St. Liz as the heir of -the first marriage, while Huntingdon had conferred an earldom on Henry, -the heir of her marriage with the Scottish king. The house of St. Liz, -however, claimed the whole inheritance, and as the Earl of Huntingdon, -of course, sided with his cousin, the Empress, Earl Simon of Northampton -was the steadfast supporter, even in their darkest hours, of Stephen and -his queen. Now, the question that arises is this: Was not Earl Henry's -province Huntingdonshire _with_ Cambridgeshire? Mr. Freeman writes of -Huntingdonshire, that "in 1051 we find it, together with Cambridgeshire, -a shire still so closely connected with it as to have a common sheriff, -detached altogether from Mercia," etc.[594] It is true that when the -former county became "an outlying portion of the earldom of -Northumberland," it does not, he observes, "appear that Cambridgeshire -followed it in this last migration;"[595] but when we compare this -earlier connection with that in the Pipe-Roll of 1130,[596] and with the -fact that under another David of Scotland, this earldom, some seventy -years later, appears as that of Huntingdon and Cambridge,[597] we shall -find in this charter a connecting link, which favours the view that the -two counties had, for comital purposes, formed one throughout. We have a -notable parallel in the adjacent counties of Norfolk and Suffolk, which -still formed one, the East Anglian earldom. Dorset and Somerset, too, -which were under one sheriff, may have been also intended to form one -earldom, for the Lord of Dunster is found both as Earl of "Dorset" and -of "Somerset." I suspect also that the Ferrers earldom was, in truth, -that of the joint shrievalty of Derbyshire and Notts, and that this is -why the latter county was never made a separate earldom till the days of -Richard II. - -The doubt of the Empress must therefore be attributed to her anxiety not -to invade the comital rights of her cousin, in case he should deem that -her creation of an earldom of Cambridgeshire would constitute such -invasion. It is evident, we shall find, that he did so. The accepted -view is, it would appear, that Aubrey, by virtue of this charter, became -Earl "of Cambridge."[598] Mr. Doyle, indeed, in his great work, goes so -far as to state that he was "cr. Earl of CAMBRIDGE by the Empress Maud -(after March 2) 1141; ... cr. Earl of OXFORD (_in exchange_) 1155."[599] -But in Cole's (unpublished) transcript of the Colne Cartulary (fols. 34, -37), we have a charter of this Aubrey, "Pro animâ patris mei Alberici de -Vere," which must have passed between 1141 and 1147, for it is attested -by Robert, Bishop of London, appointed 1141, and Hugh, Abbot of -Colchester, who died in 1147. In this charter his style is "Albericus -Comes Oxeneford." Here, then, we have evidence that, in this reign, he -was already Earl "of Oxford," not Earl of Cambridge. - -Before quitting the subject of Aubrey's creation, we may note the -bearing of the shifting clause on the creation of the earldom of -Wiltshire. It implies that Patrick of Salisbury had not yet received his -earldom. This conclusion is confirmed by a charter of the Empress tested -at Devizes, which he witnesses merely as "Patricio de Sarum -conestabulo."[600] The choice of Dorset is somewhat singular, as it -suggests an intrusion on the Mohun earldom. But this rather shadowy -dignity appears, during its brief existence, as an earldom of Somerset -rather than of Dorset. - -The specific grant of the "tertius denarius," as in the creation -charters of the earldoms of Essex and of Hereford, should also be -noticed. - -The "Earl Gilbert" who is repeatedly mentioned in the course of this -charter is Earl Gilbert "of Pembroke," maternal uncle to Aubrey. It is -this relationship that, perhaps, accounts for the part he here plays. - -Of the remaining features of interest in the record, attention may be -directed to the phrase concerning the knights' fees of William de -Helion: "Ut ipse Willelmus teneat de Comite Alberico, et ipse Comes -faciat inde michi servitium;" also to the implied forfeiture of William -Peverel of Nottingham, he having been made prisoner at Lincoln, fighting -on Stephen's side. Lastly, the promise to the earl of the chancellorship -for his brother William becomes full of interest when we know that this -was the Canon of St. Osyth,[601] and that he was to be thus rewarded as -being the clerical member of his house. It enables us further to -identify in William, the existing chancellor, the brother of John (fitz -Gilbert) the marshal. - -We have now examined these two charters, parts, I would again insist, of -one connected negotiation. What was its object? Nothing less, in my -opinion, than a combined revolt in the Eastern Counties which should -take Stephen in the rear, as soon as the arrival from Normandy of -Geoffrey of Anjou and his son should give the signal for a renewal of -the struggle, and a fresh advance upon London by the forces of the west -country. Earl Geoffrey himself was now at the height of his power. If he -were supported by Aubrey de Vere, and by Henry of Essex with Peter de -Valoines (who are specially named in Geoffrey's charter), he would be -virtually master of Essex. And if the restless Earl of the East Angles -(p. 178 _supra_) would also join him, as eventually he did, while Bishop -Nigel held Ely, Stephen would indeed be placed between two fires. I -cannot but think that it is to the rumour of some such scheme as this -that Stephen's panegyrist refers, when he tells us, the following year, -that Geoffrey "had arranged to betray the realm into the hands of the -Countess of Anjou, and that his intention to do so had been matter of -common knowledge."[602] - -I would urge that in the charters I have given above we find the key to -this allusion, and that they, in their turn, are explained, and at the -same time confirmed, by the existence of this concerted plot. We have -now to trace the failure of the scheme, and to learn how it was that all -came to nought. - -Stephen's illness, to which, it may be remembered, I had attributed in -part the inception of the scheme, only lasted till the middle of June. -By the time that Robert of Gloucester had set forth to cross the -Channel, Stephen was restored to health, and ready and eager for -action.[603] Swift to seize on such an opportunity as he had never -before obtained, he burst into the heart of the enemy's country and -marched straight on Wareham. He found its defenders off their guard; the -town was sacked and burnt, and the castle was quickly his.[604] The -precautions of the Earl of Gloucester had thus been taken in vain, and -the port he had secured for his return was now garrisoned by the king. - -The effect of this brilliant stroke was to paralyze the party of the -Empress. Her brother, who had left her with great reluctance, dreading -the fickleness of the nobles, had made her assembled supporters swear -that they would defend her in his absence, and had further taken with -him hostages for their faithful behaviour.[605] He had also so -strengthened her defences at Oxford that the city seemed almost -impregnable.[606] Lastly, a series of outlying posts secured the -communications of its defenders with the districts friendly to their -cause.[607] - -But Stephen, in the words of his panegyrist, had "awaked as one out of -sleep." Summoning to his standard his friends and supporters, he marched -on Gloucestershire itself, and appeared unexpectedly at Cirencester on -the line of the enemy's communications. Its castle, taken by surprise, -was burnt and razed to the ground. Then, completing the isolation of the -Empress, by storming, as he advanced, other of her posts,[608] he -arrived before the walls of Oxford on the 26th of September.[609] The -forces of the Empress at once deployed on the left bank of the river. -The action which followed was a curious anticipation of the struggle at -Boyne Water (1690). The king, informed of the existence of a ford, -boldly plunged into the water, and, half fording, half swimming, was one -of the first to reach the shore. Instantly charging the enemy's line, he -forced the portion opposed to him back towards the walls of the city, -and when the bulk of his forces had followed him across, the whole line -was put to flight, his victorious troops entering the gates pell-mell -with the routed fugitives. The torch was as familiar as the sword to the -soldier of the Norman age, and Oxford was quickly buried in a sheet of -smoke and fire.[610] The castle, then of great strength, alone held out. -From the summit of its mound the Empress must have witnessed the rout of -her followers; within its walls she was now destined to stand a weary -siege. - -It is probable that Stephen's success at Oxford was in part owing to the -desertion of the Empress by those who had sworn to defend her. For we -read that they were led by shame to talk of advancing to her -relief.[611] The project, however, came to nothing, and Earl Robert, -hearing of the critical state of affairs, became eager to return to the -assistance of his sister and her beleaguered followers. - -Geoffrey of Anjou had, on various pretences, detained the earl in -Normandy, instead of accepting his invitation and returning with him to -England. But Robert's patience was now exhausted, and, bringing with -him, instead of Geoffrey, the youthful Henry "fitz Empress," he sailed -for England with a fleet of more than fifty ships. Such was the first -visit to this land of the future Henry II., being then nine years and a -half, not (as stated by Dr. Stubbs) eight years old.[612] - -The earl made it a point of honour to recapture Wareham as his first -step. He also hoped to create a diversion which might draw off the king -from Oxford.[613] This was not bad strategy, for Stephen was deemed to -be stronger behind the walls of Oxford than he would be in the open -country. The position of affairs resembled, in fact, that at Winchester, -the year before. But the two sides had changed places. As the Empress, -in Winchester, had besieged Wolvesey, so now, in Oxford, Stephen did the -same. It would, therefore, have been necessary to besiege him in turn as -the Empress was besieged the year before. Well aware of the advantage he -enjoyed, Stephen refused to be decoyed away, and allowed the castle of -Wareham to fall into Robert's hands. The other posts in the -neighbourhood were also secured by the earl, who then advanced to -Cirencester, where he had summoned his friends to meet him. Thus -strengthened, he was already marching to the relief of Oxford, when he -received the news of his sister's perilous escape and flight. A close -siege of three months had brought her to the extremity of want, and -Stephen was pressing the attack with all the artillery of the time. A -few days before Christmas, in a long and hard frost, when the snow was -thick upon the ground, she was let down by ropes from the grim Norman -tower, which commanded the approach to the castle on the side of the -river. Clad in white from head to foot, and escorted by only three -knights, she succeeded under cover of the darkness of night, and by the -connivance of one of the besiegers' sentries, in passing through their -lines undetected and crossing the frozen river. After journeying on foot -for six miles, she reached the spot where horses were in waiting, and -rode for Wallingford Castle, her still unconquered stronghold.[614] - -On receiving the news of this event Robert changed his course, and -proceeded to join his sister. In her joy at the return of her brother -and the safe arrival of her son, the Empress forgot all her troubles. -She was also in safety now, herself, behind the walls of Wallingford, -the support of that town and its fidelity to her cause being gratefully -acknowledged by her son on his eventual accession to the throne.[615] - -But her husband had declined to come to her help; her city of Oxford was -lost; her _prestige_ had suffered a final blow; the great combination -scheme was at an end. - -[504] He states that the Earl of Gloucester, on his release, "circa -germanam sedulo apud Oxeneford mansitabat; quo loco, ut præfatus sum, -illa sedem sibi constituens, curiam fecerat" (p. 754). - -[505] He set sail "aliquanto post festum sancti Johannis" (_Will. -Malms._, p. 765). - -[506] See the dazzling description of his power given by the author of -the _Gesta_, who speaks of him as one "qui omnes regni primates et -divitiarum potentiâ et dignitatis excedebat opulentiâ; turrim quoque -Londoniarum in manu, sed et castella inexpugnabilis fortitudinis circa -civitatem constructa habebat, omnemque regni partem, quæ se regi -subdiderat, ut ubique per regnum regis vices adimplens, et, in rebus -agendis, rege avidius exaudiretur, et in præceptis injungendis, plus ei -quam regi obtemperaretur" (p. 101). William of Newburgh, in the same -spirit, speaks of him as "regi terribilis" (i. 44). - -[507] See p. 160. - -[508] "In totâ propemodum Angliâ sicut mortuus conclamaretur" (_ibid._). - -[509] William of Malmesbury (_ut supra_) is the authority for 1142, and -Henry of Huntingdon for 1136: "Ad Rogationes vero divulgatum est regem -mortuum esse" (p. 259). - -[510] "Jam ergo cœpit rabies prædicta Normannorum, perjurio et -proditione pullulare" (_ibid._). - -[511] It would seem to have been entered immediately after that charter -to Miles of Gloucester which I have printed on p. 11, and which precedes -it in the transcripts. - -[512] _Lansdowne MS._ 259, fol. 66. - -[513] "Archiepiscopis, etc." (Dug.). - -[514] "suus" omitted (Dug.). - -[515] "ejus" (Dug.). - -[516] "tenuerunt" (Dug., Dods.). - -[517] "subjectum" (Dods.). - -[518] "Lundoniæ et Middlesexiæ" (Dug.). - -[519] "Et ... tenuit" (Essex shrievalty) omitted by Dugdale (and, -consequently, in his _Baronage_ also). - -[520] Dodsworth transcript closes here. - -[521] "illi" omitted by Dugdale. - -[522] "quæ fuit" omitted by Dugdale. - -[523] "per servicium militare" (wrongly, Dug.). - -[524] "et" omitted by Dugdale. - -[525] "centum libratas" (Dug.). - -[526] Chreshall, _alias_ Christhall, Essex. Part of the honour of -Boulogne. Was held by Count Eustace, at the Survey, in demesne. Stephen -granted it to his own son William, who gave it to Richard de Luci. - -[527] Bendish Hall, in Radwinter, Essex. Part of the honour of Boulogne. -It was given by Stephen's son William to Faversham Abbey, Kent. - -[528] This word is illegible. It baffled the transcriber in _Lansd. MS._ -259. Dugdale has "wiam." The right reading is "luiam," the river Lea -being meant, as is proved by the Pipe-Roll of 14 Hen. II. - -[529] William fitz Otwel, Earl Geoffrey's "brother," is referred to by -Earl William (Geoffrey's son) as his uncle ("avunculus") in a charter -confirming his grant of lands (thirty-three acres) in "Abi et Toresbi" -to Greenfield Nunnery, Lincolnshire (_Harl. Cart._, 53, C, 50). He is -also a witness, as "patruus meus," to a charter of Earl Geoffrey the -younger (_Sloane Cart._, xxxii. 64), early in the reign of Henry II. He -was clearly a "uterine" brother of Earl Geoffrey the elder, so that his -father must have married William de Mandeville's widow—a fact unknown to -genealogists. - -[530] William de Sai had married Beatrice, sister (and, in her issue, -heiress) of the earl, by whom he was ancestor of the second line of -Mandeville, Earl of Essex. In the following year he joined the earl in -his furious revolt against the king. - -[531] This was William "Capra" (_Chévre_), whose family gave its name to -the manor of "Chevers" in Mountnessing, county Essex. He was probably -another brother-in-law of the earl, for I have seen a charter of Alice -(_Adelid[is]_) Capra, in which she speaks of Geoffrey's son, Earl -William, as her nephew ("nepos"). There is also a charter of a Geoffrey -Capra and Mazelina (_sic_) his wife, which suggests that the name of -Geoffrey may have come to the family from the earl. Thoby Priory, Essex, -was founded (1141-1151) by Michael Capra, Roesia his wife, and William, -their son. The founder speaks of Roger fitz Richard ("ex cujus -munificentiâ mihi idem fundus pervenit"), who was the second husband (as -I have elsewhere explained) of "Alice of Essex," _née_ de Vere, the -sister of Earl Geoffrey's wife. A Michael Capra and a William Capra, -holding respectively four and four and a half knights' fees, were feudal -tenants of Walter fitz Robert (the lord of Dunmow) in 1166. - -[532] William, son of Walter (Fitz Other) de Windsor, castellan of -Windsor. In the Pipe-Roll of 31 Hen. I., he appears as in charge of -Windsor Forest, for which he renders his account. It is probably to this -charter rather than to any separate grant that Dugdale refers in his -account of the family. - -[533] This is an unusual name. As William de Say is mentioned just -before, it may be noted that his son (Earl Geoffrey's nephew) promised -(in 1150-1160) to grant to Ramsey Abbey "marcatam redditus ex quo -adipisci poterit quadraginta marcatas de hereditate sua, scilicet de -terra Roberti _de Rumele_" (_Chron. Ram._, p. 305). Mathew de Romeli, -according to Dugdale, was the son of Robert de Romeli, lord of Skipton, -by Cecily his wife. A Mathew de Romeli, with Alan his son, occur in a -plea of 1236-7 (_Bracton's Note-Book_, ed. Maitland, iii. 189). - -[534] Geoffrey de Tourville appears in 1130 as holding land in four -counties (_Rot. Pip._, 31 Hen. I.). - -[535] William de Ou (Auco) or Eu is returned in the _carta_ of the Earl -of Essex (1166) as holding four fees of him. - -[536] See Appendix Q, on "Osbertus Octodenarii." - -[537] Dodsworth's transcript begins again here, and is continued down to -"Belloc[ampo]." - -[538] "Comes Herefordiæ" (Dug.). - -[539] So also Dodsworth; but Dugdale wrongly extends: "Robertus filius -Reginaldi." See p. 94, _n._ 4. - -[540] Robert de Courci of Stoke (Courcy), Somerset. He figures in the -Pipe-Roll of 31 Hen. I. As "Robert de Curci" he witnessed the Empress's -charter creating the earldom of Hereford (July 25, 1141), and as "Robert -de Curci Dapifer" her confirmation of the Earl of Devon's gift (_Mon. -Aug._, v. 106; _Journ. B. A. A._, xxxi. 391), both of them passing at -Oxford, the latter (probably) in 1142, subsequent to the above charter. -He was slain at Counsylth, 1157. - -[541] John Fitz Gilbert, marshal to the Empress, and brother, as the -succeeding charter proves, to William, her chancellor. With his father, -Gilbert the Marshal (_Mariscallus_), he was unsuccessfully impleaded, -under Henry I., by Robert de Venoiz and William de Hastings, for the -office of marshal (_Rot. Cart._, 1 John), and in 1130, as John the -Marshal (_Mariscallus_), he appears as charged, with his relief, in -Wiltshire, for his father's lands and office (_Rot. Pip._, 31 Hen. I.). -He is mentioned among the "barons" on the side of the Empress at the -siege of Winchester (_Gesta Stephani_), and he was, with Robert de -Curcy, witness to her (Oxford) charter, which I assign in the last note -to later in this year, as he also had been to her charter creating the -earldom of Hereford (July 25, 1141). Subsequently, he witnessed the -charter to the son of the Earl of Essex (_vide post_). He played some -part in the next reign from his official connection with the Becket -quarrel. See also p. 131. - -[542] Miles de Beauchamp, son of Robert de Beauchamp, and nephew to -Simon de Beauchamp, hereditary castellan of Bedford. In 1130 he appears -in connection with Beds. and Bucks. (_Rot. Pip._, 31 Hen. I.). With his -brother (_Salop Cartulary_) Payn de Beauchamp (who afterwards married -Rohaise, the widow of this Geoffrey de Mandeville), he had held Bedford -Castle against the king for five weeks from Christmas, 1137, as -heir-male to his uncle, whose daughter and heir, with the Bedford -barony, Stephen had conferred on Hugh _Pauper_, brother of his -favourite, the Count of Meulan (_Ord. Vit._; _Gesta Steph._). Dugdale's -account is singularly inaccurate. Simon, the uncle, must have been -living in the spring of 1136, for he then witnessed, as a royal -_dapifer_, Stephen's great (Oxford) charter. - -[543] See p. 94, _n._ 2. - -[544] Robert de Oilli the second, castellan of Oxford, and constable. -Founder of Osney Priory. He appears in the Pipe-Roll of 31 Hen. I., and -had witnessed, as a royal _constabularius_, Stephen's great (Oxford) -charter of 1136, but had embraced the cause of the Empress in 1141 (see -p. 66). He witnessed five others of the Empress's charters, all of which -passed at Oxford (_Journ. B. A. A._, xxxi. 391, 392, 396, 397). - -[545] See p. 95, note 1. - -[546] Dodsworth's transcript recommences and is continued to the end. - -[547] "Ibidem" (Dods., wrongly). - -[548] "Ijdem" (Dods., wrongly). - -[549] "Meduana" (Dug., rightly). - -"Johelus de Meduanâ" (Juhel of Mayenne) figures in the Pipe-Roll of 31 -Hen. I. as holding land in Devonshire. At the commencement of Stephen's -reign, Geoffrey of Anjou had entrusted him with three of the castles he -had captured in Normandy, on condition of receiving his support (_R. of -Torigni_). - -[550] Guy de Sablé had accompanied the Empress to England in the autumn -of 1139 (_Ord. Vit._, v. 121). - -[551] Clairvaux was a castle in Anjou. Payn de Clairvaux (_de Claris -vallibus_) had, in 1130, and for some time previously, been fermor of -Hastings, in Sussex (_Rot. Pip._, 31 Hen. I. p. 42). Later on, in -Stephen's reign, he appears at Caen, witnessing a charter of Geoffrey, -Duke of Normandy (Bayeux _Liber Niger_). - -[552] "Alvia" (Dug.). - -[553] Or "Rumard." Dugdale has "Rumard." - -[554] "Valoniis" (Dug.). - -Peter de Valoines. The occurrence of this great Hertfordshire baron is -of special interest, because we have seen the Empress granting a charter -to his father, Roger, in 1141. It is probable, therefore, that Roger had -died in the interval. Peter himself died before 1166, when his younger -brother, Robert, had succeeded him. His widow, Gundred (de Warrenne), -was then living. - -[555] "Comiti ... meis." Dodsworth has only "Com etc." - -[556] "cum sigillo" (Dods.). - -[557] The clause certainly favours the belief that a relationship -existed, but it was probably collateral, instead of lineal. - -[558] "Possessiones omnes ad ecclesiam pertinentes, castellum quoque de -Storteford in sua dominatione recepit" (_Rad. de Diceto_, i. 250). - -[559] This negotiation between the Empress and Geoffrey should be -compared with that between her and the legate in the spring of the -preceding year. Each illustrates the other. In the latter case the -expression used is, "Juravit et _affidavit_ imperatrix episcopo quod," -etc. In the former, the empress is made to say, "Hanc autem convencionem -et donacionem tenendam _affidavi_," etc. But the striking point of -resemblance is that in each case her leading followers are made to take -part in the pledge of performance. At Winchester, we read in William of -Malmesbury, "Idem juraverunt cum ea, et affidaverunt pro eâ, Robertus -frater ejus comes de Gloecestrâ, et Brianus filius comitis marchio de -Walingeford, et Milo de Gloecestriâ, postea comes de Hereford, et -nonnulli alii" (see p. 58). At Oxford, we read in these charters, "Et -hujus fiduciæ sunt obsides per fidem et Testes, Robertus comes -Gloecestrie, et Milo comes Herefordie, et Brianus filius comitis et," -etc. So close a parallel further confirms the genuineness of these -charters. - -Another remarkable document illustrative of this negotiation is the -alliance ("Confederatio amoris") between the Earls of Hereford and -Gloucester (see Appendix S). Each earl there "affidavit et juravit" to -the other, and each named certain of his followers as his "obsides per -fidem"—the very phrase here used. See also p. 385, _n._ 3. - -[560] That these securities were modelled on the practice of contracting -sovereign powers is seen on comparing them with the treaty between -Henry I. and the Count of Flanders (see Appendix S). But most to the -point is the treaty between King Stephen and Duke Henry, where the -clause for securing the "conventiones" runs:—"Archiepiscopi vero et -episcopi ab utraque parte in manu ceperunt quod si quis nostrum a -predictis conventionibus recederet, tam diu eum ecclesiastica justicia -coercebunt, quousque errata corrigat et ad predictam pactionem -observandam redeat. Mater etiam Ducis et ejus uxor et fratres ipsius -Ducis et omnes sui quos ad hoc applicare poterit, hæc assecurabunt." - -[561] We may perhaps compare the oath taken by the French king some -years before, to secure the charter ("Keure") granted to St. Omer by -William, Count of Flanders (April 14, 1127):—"Hanc igitur Communionem -tenendam, has supradictas consuetudines et conventiones esse observandas -fide promiserunt et sacramento confirmaverunt Ludovicus rex Francorum, -Guillelmus Comes Flandriæ," etc., etc. - -[562] See Appendix T, on "Affidatio in manu." - -[563] See Appendix U: "The Families of Mandeville and De Vere." - -[564] _Add. MSS._, 31,943, fols. 86 _b_, 99, 116 _b_. - -[565] It is headed "Pro Comite Oxoniæ Carta Matildæ Imperatricis -confirmata," and it confirms the grants made by her "prout per cartam -illam (_i.e._ Matildæ) plenius liquet." - -[566] See Appendix V, on "William of Arques." - -[567] _i.e._ escambio. - -[568] Of Helions in Bumsted Helion, Essex, the other portion of the -parish, viz. Bumsted Hall, being, at and from the Survey, a portion of -the De Vere fief. These his ten fees duly figure in the _Liber Niger_. - -[569] Dedham, Essex. - -[570] They were named, I presume, from the castle of Rames, adjoining -the forest of Lillebonne. - -[571] This would seem to imply that Roger de Ramis had married a sister -of Aubrey de Vere. See Appendix X: "Roger de Ramis." - -[572] Grey's Thurrock, in South Essex, being that portion of it which -had been held by William Peverel at the Survey. - -[573] Query, the "Salamon clericus de Sudwic" (Northants) of the -Pipe-Roll of 31 Hen. I. (p. 85)? - -[574] This was not Tilbury on the Thames, but Tilbury (Essex) near -Clare, as is proved by _Liber Niger_ (p. 393), where this land of -Salamon proves to be part of the honour of Boulogne, held as a fifth of -a knight's fee. - -[575] See Appendix R: "The Forest of Essex." - -[576] Geoffrey Talbot appears in the Pipe-Roll of 31 Henry I. as paying -two hundred marks of silver for his father's land in Kent (p. 67). As -"Agnes Vxor Gaufredi Talebot" is charged, at the same time, "pro dote et -maritagio suo" (_ibid._), it would seem that our Geoffrey had a father -of the same name. We learn from the _Liber Niger_ (i. 58) that at the -death of Henry I. (1135) he held twenty knights' fees in Kent. - -[577] "Rogeri" in MS. - -[578] Or "Rumard." - -[579] _Rectius_ Petr[us]. - -[580] "Ex libro quodam pervetusto in pergamena manuscripto in custodia -Henrici Vere nunc Comitis Oxoniæ, et mihi per Capitan: Skipwith, mutuato -21 April, 1622." - -[581] See Appendix Y. - -[582] As "turrim de Colcestr' et castellum" for "turrim et castellum de -Colcestr'." The only difference of any importance is that Dugdale reads -"Albenejo" in this charter, where he has "Albrincis" in that of the -Empress. - -[583] I may perhaps be permitted to refer to my own discovery, in a -stable loft, of a document bearing the seal of the King-maker, and -bearing his rare autograph, which antiquaries had lost sight of since -the days of Camden. - -[584] Mr. Eyton must have strangely overlooked this charter, for he -begins his series of Henry's charters in 1149. - -[585] "Inga" in Dugdale's transcript, and rightly so, for we find this -same Hugh, as "Hugo de Ging'," a witness to a charter on behalf of Earl -Aubrey, about this time (_infra_, p. 190). There were several places in -Essex named "Ging" _alias_ "Ing." - -[586] Compare the famous Lewes charter of William de Warenne, Earl of -Surrey, said (if genuine) to be the earliest allusion to a peerage -creation. There the earl speaks of William Rufus, "qui me Surreæ comitem -_fecit_." - -[587] _Abingdon Cartulary_, ii. 179. - -[588] It should, however, be observed that in this same charter she -refers to Earl Gilbert (of Pembroke) and Earl Hugh (of Norfolk) by their -comital style, though, so far as we know, they were earls of Stephen's -creation alone. But such a reference as this is very different from the -style formally given in a charter of creation. - -[589] _Archæologia_, vol. xxxi. - -[590] "Its date is subsequent to the 25th of July, 1141, when the -Empress created Milo de Gloucester Earl of Hereford at Oxford, who has -this title in the charter, and, from its having been given at Oxford, -there can be little doubt that it was contemporaneous with that -creation, and certainly prior to the siege of Winchester in the month of -August following" (_ibid._, pp. 231, 232). - -[591] Of these witnesses "ex parte comitis," Geoffrey de Ver held half a -knight's fee of him, Robert fitz Humfrey held one, Robert fitz "Ailric" -one, Ralph fitz Adam a quarter, Ralph de Guisnes one, Geoffrey Arsic -two, Robert de Cocefeld three, Ralph Carbonel one and a half. Hugh de -Ging' was the "Hugo de Inga" who acted as proxy (_vide supra_) at -Henry's confirmation of his mother's charter. This charter has an -independent value for its bearing on knights' fees. See also Addenda. - -[592] At the same time, we must remember that he held a considerable -fief in Cambridgeshire (see Domesday), which, if he could not have -Essex, might lead him to select that county. - -[593] _Norm. Conq._, ii. 559. - -[594] _Ibid._ - -[595] _Norm. Conq._, ii. 559. - -[596] Where they form one shrievalty with one _firma_, though the county -of Surrey as well is inexplicably combined with them. - -[597] And the "tertius denarius" of Cambridgeshire was actually held by -its earl (1205). - -[598] Stubbs, _Const. Hist._, i. 362, _note_. - -[599] _Official Baronage_, i. 291. - -[600] _Mon. Ang._, v. 440; _Journ. B. A. A._, xxxi. 392. This conclusion -reveals a further error in the _Histoire de Guillaume le Maréchal_, -which gives a very incomprehensible account of this Patrick's action. - -[601] See Appendix U. - -[602] "Regnum, ut in ore jam vulgi celebre fuerat, comitissæ -Andegavensi conferre disposuerat" (_Gesta Stephani_, p. 101). This very -remarkable incidental allusion should be compared with that in which -Henry of Huntingdon justifies the earl's arrest by Stephen: "Nisi enim -hoc egisset, perfidio consulis illius regno privatus fuisset" (p. 276). - -[603] "Duravit improspera valetudo usque post Pentecostem (June 7); tum -enim sensim refusus salutis vigor eum in pedes erexit" (_Will. Malms._, -p. 763). - -[604] "Rex ... comitis absentiam aucupatus, subito ad Waram veniens, et -non bene munitum propugnatoribus offendens, succensa et depredata villa, -statim etiam castello potitus est" (_ibid._, p. 766). - -[605] "Obsides poposcit sigillatim ab his qui optimates videbantur, -secum in Normannia ducendos, vadesque futuros tam comiti Andegavensi -quam imperatrici quod omnes, junctis umbonibus ab ea, dum ipse abesset, -injurias propulsarent, viribus suis apud Oxeneford manentes" (_Will. -Malms._, p. 764). The phrase "junctis umbonibus" revives memories of the -shield-wall. See also Appendix S. - -[606] "Civitatem ... ita comes Gloecestrie fossatis munierat, ut -inexpugnabilis præter per incendium videretur" (_ibid._, p. 766). - -[607] _Gesta_, pp. 87, 88. - -[608] _Gesta_, p. 88. - -[609] "Tribus diebus ante festum Sancti Michaelis" (_Will. Malms._, p. -766). - -[610] See the brilliant description of this action in the _Gesta -Stephani_, pp. 88, 89. - -[611] "Mox igitur optimates quidem omnes imperatricis, confusi quia a -domina sua præter statutum abfuerant, confertis cuneis ad Walengeford -convenerunt," etc. (_Will. Malms._, p. 766). - -[612] Dr. Stubbs has erroneously placed his landing in 1141 instead of -in the autumn of 1142. See Appendix Y, on "The First and Second Visits -of Henry II. to England." - -[613] _Will. Malms._, pp. 767, 768. - -[614] See, for the story of her romantic escape, the _Gesta Stephani_ -(pp. 89, 90), _William of Malmesbury_ (pp. 768, 769), _John of Hexham_ -(_Sym. Dun._, ii. 317), _William of Newburgh_ (i. 43), and the -_Anglo-Saxon Chronicle_ (p. 384). This last is of special value for its -mention of her escape from the tower of the castle. It states that -Stephen "besæt hire in the tur," and that she was on the night of her -escape let down by ropes from the tower ("me læt hire dun on niht of the -tur mid rapes"). It is difficult to see how this can mean anything else -than that she was lowered to the ground from the existing tower, instead -of leaving by a gate. - -[615] See his charter to Wallingford (printed in Hearne's _Liber Niger_ -(1771), pp. 817, 818), in which he grants privileges "pro servitio et -labore magno quem pro me sustinuerunt in acquisitione hereditarii juris -mei in Anglia." - - - - - CHAPTER IX. - FALL AND DEATH OF GEOFFREY. - - -The movements of Geoffrey during the latter half of 1142 are shrouded in -utter darkness. After the surrender of the isle of Ely, we lose sight of -him altogether, save in the glimpse afforded us by the Oxford intrigue. -It is, however, quite possible that we should assign to the period of -the siege of Oxford Castle (September-December, 1142) a charter to -Abingdon Abbey which passed at Oxford.[616] For if we deduct from its -eight witnesses the two local barons (Walter de Bocland and Hugh de -Bolbec), five of the remaining six are found in the Canterbury -charter.[617] In that case, Geoffrey, who figures at their head, must -have been at Oxford, in Stephen's quarters, at some time in the course -of the siege. He would obviously not declare for the Empress till the -time was ripe for the scheme, and, in the meanwhile, it might disarm -suspicion, and secure his safety in the case of the capture or defeat of -the Empress, if he continued outwardly in full allegiance to the king. - -It was not till the following year that the crisis at length came. -Stephen, at Mid-Lent, had attended a council at London, at which decrees -were passed against the general disregard of the rights and privileges -of the Church. Her ministers were henceforth to be free from outrage, -and her sanctuaries from violation, under penalty of an excommunication -which only the pope himself could remove.[618] - -At some period in the course of the year (1143) after this -council—possibly about the end of September—the king held a court at St. -Albans, to which, it would seem, there came the leading nobles of the -realm.[619] Among them was the Earl of Essex, still at the height of his -power. Of what passed on this occasion we have, from independent -quarters, several brief accounts.[620] Of the main fact there is no -question. Stephen, acting on that sudden impulse which roused him at -times to unwonted vigour, struck at last, and struck home. The mighty -earl was seized and bound, and according to the regular practice -throughout this internecine warfare, the surrender of the castles on -which his strength was based was made the price of his liberty. As with -the arrest of the bishops at Oxford in 1139, so was it now with the -arrest of the great earl at St. Albans, and so it was again to be at -Northampton, with the arrest of the Earl of Chester some three years -later. What it was that decided Stephen to seize this moment for thus -reasserting his authority, it is not so easy to say. William of -Newburgh, who is fullest on the subject, gives us the story, which is -found nowhere else, of the earl's outrage on the king more than three -years before,[621] and tells us that Stephen had been ever since -awaiting an opportunity for revenge.[622] He adds that the height of -power to which the earl had attained had filled the king with dread, and -hints, I think, obscurely at that great conspiracy of which the earl, as -we have seen, was the pivot and the moving spirit.[623] Henry of -Huntingdon plainly asserts that his seizure was a necessity for the -king, who would otherwise have lost his crown through the King-maker's -treacherous schemes.[624] We may, indeed, safely believe that the time -had now come when Stephen felt that it must be decided whether he or -Geoffrey were master.[625] But, as with the arrest of the bishops at -Oxford four years before, so, at this similar crisis, his own feelings -and his own jealousy of a power beneath which he chafed were assiduously -fostered and encouraged by a faction among the nobles themselves. This -is well brought out in the Chronicle of Walden Abbey,[626] and still -more so in the _Gesta_. It is there distinctly asserted that this -faction worked upon the king, by reminding him of Geoffrey's -unparalleled power, and of his intention to declare for the Empress, -urging him to arrest the earl as a traitor, to seize his castles and -crush his power, and so to secure safety for himself and peace for his -troubled realm.[627] It is added that, Stephen hesitating to take the -decisive step, the jealousy of the barons blazed forth suddenly into -open strife, taunts and threats being hurled at one another by the earl -and his infuriated opponents.[628] On the king endeavouring to allay the -tumult, the earl was charged to his face with plotting treason. Called -upon to rebut the charge, he did not attempt to do so, but laughed with -cynical scorn. The king, outraged beyond endurance, at once ordered his -arrest, and his foes rushed upon him.[629] - -The actual seizure of the earl appears to have been attended by -circumstances of which we are only informed from a somewhat unexpected -quarter. Mathew Paris, from his connection with St. Albans, has been -able to preserve in his _Historia Anglorum_ the local tradition of the -event. From this we learn, firstly, that there was a struggle; secondly, -that there was a flagrant violation of the right of sanctuary. The -struggle, indeed, was so sharp that the Earl of Arundel, whom we know to -have been an old opponent of Geoffrey (see p. 323), was rolled over, -horse and all, and nearly drowned in "Holywell." The fact that this -tussle took place in the open would seem to imply that the whole of this -highly dramatic episode took place out of doors.[630] As to the other of -these two points, it is clear that there was something discreditable to -Stephen, according to the opinion of the time, in his sudden seizure of -the earl. William of Newburgh observes that he acted "non quidem honeste -et secundum jus gentium, sed pro merito ejus et metu; scilicet, quod -expediret quam quod deceret plus attendens." Henry of Huntingdon -similarly writes that such a step was "magis secundum retributionem -nequitiæ consulis quam secundum jus gentium, magis ex necessitate quam -ex honestate."[631] The Chronicle of Walden, also, complains of the -circumstances of his arrest;[632] and even the panegyrist of Stephen is -anxious to clear his fame by imputing to the barons the suggestion of -what he admits to be a questionable act, and claiming for the king the -credit of reluctance to adopt their advice.[633] - -But there was a more serious charge brought against the king than that -of dishonourable behaviour to the earl. He was accused of violating by -his conduct the rights of sanctuary of St. Albans, though he had sworn, -we are told, not to do so, and had taken part so shortly before in that -council of London at which such violations were denounced. The abbot's -knights, indeed, went so far as to resist by force of arms this outrage -on the Church's rights.[634] It is clearly to the contest thus caused, -rather than (as implied by Mathew) to the actual arrest of Geoffrey, -that we must assign the struggle in which the Earl of Arundel was -unhorsed by Walchelin de Oxeai, for Walchelin was one of the abbey's -knights, and was, therefore, fighting in her cause.[635] - -Though the friends of the earl interceded on his behalf,[636] the king -had no alternative but to complete what he had begun. After what he had -done there could be no hope of reconciliation with the earl. Geoffrey -was offered the usual choice; either he must surrender his castles, or -he must go to the gallows. Taken to London, he was clearly made, -according to the practice in these cases, to order his own garrison to -surrender to the king. Thus he saw the fortress which he had himself -done so much to strengthen, the source of his power and of his pride, -pass for ever from his grasp. He had also to surrender, before regaining -his freedom, his ancestral Essex strongholds of Pleshy and Saffron -Walden.[637] - -The earl's impotent rage when he found himself thus overreached is dwelt -on by all the chroniclers.[638] The king's move, moreover, had now -forced his hand, and the revolt so carefully planned could no longer be -delayed, but broke out prematurely at a time when the Empress was not in -a position to offer effective co-operation. - -We must now return to the doings of Nigel, Bishop of Ely. That prelate -had for a year (1142-43) been peacefully occupied in his see. But at the -council of 1143 his past conduct had been gravely impugned. Alarmed at -the turn affairs were taking, he decided to consult the Empress.[639] He -must, I think, have gone by sea, for we find him, on his way at Wareham, -the port for reaching her in Wiltshire. Here he was surprised and -plundered by a party of the king's men.[640] He succeeded, however, in -reaching the Empress, and then returned to Ely. He had now resolved to -appeal to the pope in person, a resolve quickened, it may be, by the -fact that the legate, who was one of his chief opponents, had gone -thither in November (1143). With great difficulty, and after long -debate, he prevailed on the monks to let him carry off, from among the -remaining treasures of the church, a large amount of those precious -objects without the assistance of which, especially in a doubtful cause, -it would have been but lost labour to appeal to the heir of the -Apostles. As it was Pope Lucius before whom he successfully cleared his -character, and as Lucius was not elected till the March of the following -year (1144), I have placed his departure for Rome subsequent to that of -the legate. He may, of course, have arrived there sooner and applied to -Cœlestine without success, but as that pontiff favoured the Empress, -this is not probable. Indeed, the wording of the narrative is distinctly -opposed to the idea.[641] In any case, my object is to show that the -period of his absence abroad harmonizes well with the London Chronicle, -which places Geoffrey's revolt about the end of the year. For the bishop -had been gone some time when the earl obtained possession of Ely.[642] - -Hugh Bigod, the Earl of Norfolk, whose allegiance had ever sat lightly -upon him, appears to have eventually become his ally,[643] but for the -time we hear only of his brother-in-law, William de Say, as actively -embracing his cause.[644] He must, however, have relied on at least the -friendly neutrality of his relatives, the Clares and the De Veres, in -Cambridgeshire, Suffolk, and Essex, as well as on the loyalty of his own -vassals. It is possible, from scattered sources, to trace his plan of -action, and to reconstruct the outline of what we may term the fenland -campaign. - -Fordham, in Cambridgeshire, on the Suffolk border, appears to have been -his base of operations. Here supplies could reach him from Suffolk and -North Essex. He was thence enabled to advance to Ely, the bishop being -at this time absent at Rome, and his forces being hard pressed by those -which Stephen had despatched against them. The earl gladly accepted -their appeal to himself for assistance, and was placed by them in -possession of the isle, including its key, Aldreth Castle.[645] He soon -made a further advance, and, pushing on in the same direction, burst -upon Ramsey Abbey on a December[646] morning at daybreak, seized the -monks in their beds, drove them forth clad as they were, and turned the -abbey into a fortified post.[647] - -He was probably led to this step by the confusion then reigning among -the brethren. A certain scheming monk, Daniel by name, had induced the -abbot to resign in his favour. The resignation was indignantly -repudiated by the monks and the tenants of the abbey, but Stephen, -bribed by Daniel, had visited Ramsey in person, and installed him by -force as abbot only eighteen days before the earl's attack.[648] It is, -therefore, quite possible that, as stated in the Walden Chronicle, -Daniel may have been privy to this gross outrage. In any case the earl's -conduct excited universal indignation.[649] He stabled his horses in the -cloisters; he plundered the church of its most sacred treasures; he -distributed its manors among his lawless followers, and he then sent -them forth to ravage far and wide. In short, in the words of the pious -chronicler, he made of the church of God a very den of thieves.[650] - -But for the time these same enormities enabled the daring earl at once -to increase the number of his followers and to acquire a strategical -position unrivalled for his purpose. The soldiers of fortune and -mercenary troopers who now swarmed throughout the land flocked in crowds -to his standard, and he was soon at the head of a sufficient force to -undertake offensive operations.[651] From his advanced post at Ramsey -Abbey, he was within striking distance of several important points, -while himself comparatively safe from attack. His front and right flank -were covered by the meres and fens; his left was to some extent -protected by the Ouse and its tributaries, and was further strengthened -by a fortified work, erected by his son Ernulf at one of the abbey's -manors, Wood Walton.[652] In his rear lay the isle of Ely, with its -castles in the hands of his men, and its communications with the Eastern -Counties secured by his garrison at Fordham.[653] His positions at Ely -and Ramsey were themselves connected by a garrison, on the borders of -the two counties, at Benwick.[654] - -Thus situated, the earl was enabled to indulge his thirst for vengeance, -if not on Stephen himself, at least on his unfortunate subjects. From -his fastness in the fenland he raided forth; his course was marked by -wild havoc, and he returned laden with plunder.[655] - -Cambridge, as being the king's town, underwent at his hands the same -fate that Nottingham had suffered in 1140, or Worcester in 1139, at the -hands of the Earl of Gloucester.[656] Bursting suddenly on the town, he -surprised, seized, and sacked it. As at Worcester, the townsmen had -stored in the churches such property as they could; but the earl was -hardened to sacrilege: the doors were soon crashing beneath the axes of -his eager troopers, and when they had pillaged to their hearts' content, -the town was committed to the flames.[657] The whole country round was -the scene of similar deeds.[658] The humblest village church was not -safe from his attack,[659] but the religious houses, from their own -wealth, and from the accumulated treasures which, for safety, were then -stored within their walls, offered the most alluring prize. It is only -from the snatch of a popular rhyme that we learn incidentally the fact -that St. Ives was treated even as the abbey of which it was a -daughter-house. In a MS. of the _Historia Anglorum_ there is preserved -by Mathew Paris the tradition that the earl and his lawless followers -mockingly sang of their wild doings— - - "I ne mai a live - For Benoit ne for Ive."[660] - -It may not have been observed that this jingle refers to St. Benedict of -Ramsey and its daughter-house of St. Ives.[661] - -Emboldened by success, he extended his ravages, till his deeds could no -longer be ignored.[662] Stephen, at length fairly roused, marched in -strength against him, determined to suppress the revolt. But the earl, -skilfully avoiding an encounter in the open field, took refuge in the -depths of the fenland and baffled the efforts of the king. Finding it -useless to prolong the chase, Stephen fell back on his usual policy of -establishing fortified posts to hem the rebels in. In these he placed -garrisons, and so departed.[663] - -Geoffrey was now at his worst. Checked in extending his sphere of -plunder, he ravaged, with redoubled energy, the isle itself. His tools, -disguised as beggars, wandered from door to door, to discover those who -were still able to relieve them from their scanty stores. The hapless -victims of this stratagem were seized at dead of night, dragged before -the earl as a great prize, and exposed in turn to every torture that a -devilish ingenuity could devise till the ransom demanded by their -captors had been extorted to the uttermost farthing.[664] I cannot but -think that the terrible picture of the cruelties which have made this -period memorable for ever in our history was painted by the Peterborough -chronicler from life, and that these very doings in his own -neighbourhood inspired his imperishable words. - -Nor was it only the earl that the brethren of Ely had to fear. Stephen, -infuriated at the loss of the isle, laid the blame at their bishop's -door, and seized all those of their possessions which were not within -the earl's grasp. The monks, thus placed "between the devil and the deep -sea," were indeed at their wits' end.[665] A very interesting reference -to this condition of things is found in a communication from the pope to -Archbishop Theobald, stating that Bishop Nigel of Ely has written to -complain that he found on his return from Rome that Earl Geoffrey, in -his absence, had seized and fortified the isle, and ravaged the -possessions of his church within it, while Stephen had done the same for -those which lay without it. As it would seem that this document has not -been printed, I here append the passage:— - - "Venerabilis frater noster N. elyensis episcopus per literas suas nobis - significavit quod dum apostolicorum limina et nostram presentiam - visitasset, Gaufridus comes de mandeuilla elyensem insulam ubi sedes - episcopalis est violenter occupavit et quasdam sibi munitiones in ea - parauit. Occupatis autem ab ipso comite interioribus, Stephanus rex - omnes ejusdem ecclesie possessiones exteriores occupavit et pro - voluntate sua illicite distribuit."[666] - -This letter would seem to have been written subsequent to Nigel's -return. The bishop, however, had heard while at Rome of these violent -proceedings,[667] and had prevailed on Lucius to write to Theobald and -his fellow-bishops, complaining— - - "Quod a quibusdam parrochianis vestris bona et possessiones elyensis - ecclesie, precipue dum ipse ab episcopatu expulsus esset, direpta sunt - et occupata et contra justitiam teneantur. Quidam etiam sub nomine - _tenseriarum_ villas et homines suos spoliant et injustis operationibus - et exaccionibus opprimunt."[668] - -But the bishop was not the only sufferer who turned to Rome for help. -When Stephen installed the ambitious Daniel as Abbot of Ramsey in -person, Walter, the late abbot, had sought "the threshold of the -Apostles." Daniel, whether implicated or not in Geoffrey's sacrilegious -deeds, found himself virtually deposed when the abbey became a fortress -of the earl. Alarmed also for the possible consequence of Walter's -appeal to Rome, he resolved to follow his example and betake himself to -the pope, trusting to the treasure that he was able to bring.[669] The -guileless simplicity of Walter, however, carried the day; he found -favour in the eyes of the curia and returned to claim his abbey.[670] -But though he had been absent only three months, the scene was changed -indeed. That which he had left "the House of God," he found, as we have -seen, "a den of thieves." But the "dove" who had pleaded before the -papal court could show himself, at need, a lion. Filled, we are told, -with the Holy Spirit, he entered, undaunted, the earl's camp, seized a -flaming torch, and set fire not only to the tents of his troopers, but -also to the outer gate of the abbey, which they had made the barbican of -their stronghold. But neither this novel adaptation of the orthodox -"tongues of fire," nor yet the more appropriate anathemas which he -scattered as freely as the flames, could convert the mailed sinners from -the error of their unhallowed ways. Indeed, it was almost a miracle that -he escaped actual violence, for the enraged soldiery threatened him with -death and brandished their weapons in his face.[671] - -In the excited state of the minds of those by whom such sights were -witnessed, portents would be looked for, and found, as signs of the -wrath of Heaven. Before long it was noised abroad that the very walls of -the abbey were sweating blood, as a mark of Divine reprobation on the -deeds of its impious garrison.[672] Far and wide the story spread; and -men told with bated breath how they had themselves seen and touched the -abbey's bleeding walls. Among those attracted by the wondrous sight was -Henry, Archdeacon of Huntingdon, who has recorded for all time that he -beheld it with his own eyes.[673] And as they spoke to one another of -the miracle, in which they saw the finger of God, the starving peasants -whispered their hopes that the hour of their deliverance was at hand. - -The time, indeed, had come. As the now homeless abbot wandered over the -abbey's lands, sick at heart, in weariness and want, the sights that met -his despairing eyes were enough to make him long for death.[674] Barely -a plough remained on all his broad demesnes; all provisions had been -carried off; no man tilled the land. Every lord had now his castle, and -every castle was a robber's nest.[675] In vain he boldly appealed to -Earl Geoffrey himself, warning him to his face that he and his would -remain cut off from the communion of Christians till the abbey was -restored to its owners. The earl listened with impatience, and gave him -a vague promise; but he kept his hold of the abbey.[676] The heart of -the spoiler was hardened like that of Pharaoh of old, and not even -miracles could move him to part with his precious stronghold.[677] - -But if Ramsey had thus suffered, what had been the fate of Ely? A bad -harvest, combined with months of systematic plunder, had brought about a -famine in the land. For the space of twenty or even thirty miles, -neither ox nor plough was to be seen; barely could the smallest bushel -of grain he bought for two hundred pence. The people, by hundreds and -thousands, were perishing for want of bread, and their corpses lay -unburied in the fields, a prey to beasts and to fowls of the air. Not -for ages past, as it seemed to the monks, had there been such -tribulation upon earth.[678] Nor were the peasants the only sufferers. -Might was then right, for all classes, throughout the land;[679] the -smaller gentry were themselves seized, and held, by their captors, to -ransom. As they heard of distant villages in flames, as they gazed on -strings of captives dragged from their ravaged homes, the words of the -psalmist were adapted in the mouths of the terrified monks: "They bind -the godly with chains, and the nobles with links of iron."[680] In the -mad orgie of wickedness neither women nor the aged were spared. Ransom -was wrung from the quivering victims by a thousand refinements of -torture. In the groans of the sufferers, in the shrieks of the tortured, -men beheld the fulfilment of the words of St. John the Apostle, "In -those days shall men ... desire to die, and death shall flee from -them."[681] - -Again we are tempted to ask if we have not in these very scenes the -actual original from which was drawn the picture in the English -Chronicle, a picture which might thus be literally true of the -chronicler's own district, while not necessarily applicable, as the -latest research suggests, to the whole of Stephen's realm. - -It was now that men "said openly that Christ slept, and His saints." The -English chronicler seems to imply, and Henry of Huntingdon distinctly -asserts, that the wicked, emboldened by impunity, said so in scornful -derision; but William of Newburgh assigns the cry to the sufferings of a -despairing people. It is probable enough that both were right, that the -people and their oppressors had reversed the parts of Elijah and the -priests of Baal. For a time there seemed to rise in vain the cry so -quaintly Englished in the paraphrase of John Hopkins:— - - "Why doost withdraw thy hand aback, - And hide it in thy lappe? - O pluck it out, and be not slack - To give thy foes a rappe!" - -But when night is darkest, dawn is nearest,[682] and the end of the -oppressor was at hand. It was told in after days how even Nature herself -had shown, by a visible sign, her horror of his impious deeds. While -marching to the siege of Burwell on a hot summer's day, he halted at the -edge of a wood, and lay down for rest in the shade. And lo! the very -grass withered away beneath the touch of his unhallowed form![683] - -The fortified post which the king's men had now established at Burwell -was a standing threat to Fordham, the key of his line of communications. -He was therefore compelled to attack it. And there he was destined to -die the death of Richard Cœur de Lion. As he reconnoitred the position -to select his point of attack, or as, according to others, he was -fighting at the head of the troops, he carelessly removed his headpiece -and loosened his coat of mail. A humble bowman saw his chance: an arrow -whizzed from the fortress, and struck the unguarded head.[684] - -There is a conflict of testimony as to the date of the event. Henry of -Huntingdon places it in August, while M. Paris (_Chron. Maj._, ii. 177) -makes him die on the 14th of September, and the Walden Chronicle on the -16th. Possibly he was wounded in August and lingered on into September, -but, in any case, Henry's date is the most trustworthy. - -The monks of Ramsey gloried in the fact that their oppressor had -received his fatal wound as he stood on ground which their abbey owned, -as a manifest proof that his fate was incurred by the wrong he had done -to their patron saint.[685] At Waltham Abbey, with equal pride, it was -recorded that he who had refused to atone for the wrong he had done to -its holy cross received his wound in the self-same hour in which its aid -was invoked against the oppressor of its shrine.[686] But all were -agreed that such a death was a direct answer to the prayer of the -oppressed, a signal act of Divine vengeance on one who had sinned -against God and man.[687] - -For the wound was fatal. The earl, like Richard in after days, made -light of it at first.[688] Retiring, it would seem, through Fordham, -along the Thetford road, he reached Mildenhall in Suffolk, and there he -remained, to die. The monks of his own foundation believed, and perhaps -with truth, that when face to face with death, he displayed heartfelt -penitence, prayed earnestly that his sins might he forgiven, and made -such atonement to God and man as his last moments could afford. But -there was none to give him the absolution he craved; indeed, after the -action which the Church had taken the year before, it is doubtful if any -one but the pope could absolve so great a sinner.[689] - -In the mean time the Abbot of Ramsey heard the startling news, and saw -that his chance had come. The earl might be willing to save his soul at -the cost of restoring the abbey. To Mildenhall he flew in all haste, but -only to find that the earl had already lost consciousness. There awaited -him, however, the fruit of his oppressor's tardy repentance in the form -of instructions from the earl to his son to surrender Ramsey Abbey. -Armed with these, the abbot departed as speedily as he had come.[690] - -The tragic end of the great earl must have filled the thoughts of men -with a strange awe and horror. That one who had rivalled, but a year -ago, the king himself in power, should meet an inglorious death at the -hands of a wretched churl, that he who had defied the thunders of the -Church should fall as if by a bolt from heaven, were facts which, in the -highly wrought state of the minds of men at the time, were indeed signs -and wonders.[691] But even more tragic than his death was the fate which -awaited his corpse. Unshriven, he had passed away laden with the curses -of the Church. His soul was lost for ever; and his body no man might -bury.[692] As the earl was drawing his last breath there came upon the -scene some Knights Templar, who flung over him the garb of their order -so that he might at least die with the red cross upon his breast.[693] -Then, proud in the privileges of their order, they carried the remains -to London, to their "Old Temple" in Holborn. There the earl's corpse was -enclosed in a leaden coffin, which was hung, say some, on a gnarled -fruit tree, that it might not contaminate the earth, or was hurled, -according to others, into a pit without the churchyard.[694] So it -remained, for nearly twenty years, exposed to the gibes of the -Londoners, the earl's "deadly foes." But with the characteristic -faithfulness of a monastic house to its founder, the monks of Walden -clung to the hope that the ban of the Church might yet be removed, and -the bones of the great earl be suffered to rest among them. According to -their chronicle, Prior William, who had obtained his post from -Geoffrey's hands, rested not till he had wrung his absolution from Pope -Alexander III.[695] (1159-1181). But the _Ramsey Chronicle_, which -appears to be a virtually contemporary record, assigns the eventual -removal of the ban to Geoffrey's son and namesake, and to the atonement -which he made to Ramsey Abbey on his father's behalf.[696] The latter -story is most precise, but both may well be true. For, although the -Ramsey chronicler would more especially insist on the fact that St. -Benedict had to be appeased before the earl could be absolved, the -absolution itself would be given not by the abbot, but by the pope. The -grant to Ramsey would be merely a condition of the absolution itself -being granted. The nature of the grant is known to us not only from the -chronicle, but also from the primate's charter confirming this final -settlement.[697] As this confirmation is dated at Windsor, April 6, -1163, we thus, roughly, obtain the date of the earl's Christian -burial.[698] - -The Prior of Walden had gained his end, and he now hastened to the -Temple to claim his patron's remains. But his hopes were cruelly -frustrated at the very moment of success. Just as the body of the then -earl (1163) was destined to be coveted at his death (1166) by two rival -houses, so now the remains of his father were a prize which the -indignant Templars would never thus surrender. Warned of the prior's -coming, they instantly seized the coffin, and buried it at once in their -new graveyard, where, around the nameless resting-place of the great -champion of anarchy, there was destined to rise, in later days, the home -of English law.[699] - -[616] _Chronicle of Abingdon_, ii. 178, 179. Assigned to "probably about -the Christmas of 1135" (p. 542). - -[617] See p. 143. They are Earl Geoffrey, Robert de Ver, William of -Ypres, Adam "de Belnaio," and Richard de Luci. The sixth, "Mainfeninus -Brito," we have seen attesting Stephen's first charter to Geoffrey in -1140 (p. 52). Another charter, perhaps, may also be assigned to this -period, namely, that of Stephen (at Oxford) to St. Frideswide's, of -which the original is now preserved in the Bodleian Library. For this, -as for the preceding charter, the date suggested is 1135 (_Calendar of -Charters and Rolls_), but the names of William of Ypres and Richard de -Luci prove that this date is too early. These names, with that of Robert -de Ver, are common to both charters, and if Richard de Luci's earliest -attestation is in the summer of 1140, it is quite possible that this -charter should be assigned to the siege of 1142. - -[618] _Rog. Wend._, ii. 233; _Mat. Paris_ (_Hist. Angl._), i. 270; _Hen. -Hunt._, p. 276. - -[619] No clue to this date, important though it is for our story, is -afforded by any of the ordinary chroniclers. The London Chronicle, -however, preserved in the _Liber de Antiquis Legibus_ (fol. 35), -carefully dates it "post festum Sancti Michaelis." - -[620] _Mon. Ang._, iv. 142; _Mat. Paris_ (_Hist. Angl._), i. 270, 271; -_William of Newburgh_, cap. xi.; _Gesta Stephani_, pp. 103, 104; _Hen. -Hunt._, p. 276. - -[621] See p. 47. - -[622] "Acceptam ab eo injuriam rex caute dissimulabat, et tempus -opportunum quo se ulcisceretur, observabat." - -[623] "Subtili astutia ingentia moliens." - -[624] "Nisi enim hoc egisset, perfidia consulis illius regno privatus -fuisset." - -[625] Compare the words of the _Gesta_: "Ubique per regnum regis vices -adimplens et in rebus agendis rege avidius exaudiretur et in præceptis -injungendis plus ei quam regi obtemperaretur." - -[626] "Tandem vero a quibusdam regni majoribus, stimulante invidia, -iniqua loquentibus, quasi regis proditor ac patriæ dilator erga regem -mendaciter clanculo accusatus est.... Vir autem iste magnanimus subdola -malignantium fraude, ut jam dictum est, delusus" (_Mon. Ang._, iv. 142). - -[627] "Tum quia Galfridus, ut videbatur, omnia regni jura sibi callide -usurparat, tum quia regnum ut in ore jam vulgi celebre fuerat, comitissæ -Andegavensi conferre disposuerat, ad hoc regem secreta persuasione -impulerunt, quatinus Galfridum de proditionis infamia notatum caperet, -et redditis quæcunque possederat castellis, et rex post hinc securus, et -regnum ipsius haberetur pacatius" (_Gesta_). - -[628] "Rege multo tempore differente, ne regia majestas turpi -proditionis opprobrio infameretur, subito inter Galfridum et barones, -injuriis et minis utrinque protensis, orta seditio" (_ibid._). - -[629] "Cumque rex habitam inter eos dissensionem, sedatis partibus, -niteretur dirimere, affuerunt quidam, qui Galfridum de proditionis -factione in se et suos machinatâ, libera fronte accusabant. Cumque se de -objecto crimine minime purgaret, sed turpissimam infamiam verbis jocosis -alludendo infringeret, rex et qui præsentes erant Barones Galfridum et -suos repente ceperunt" (_ibid._). - -[630] This story, being told by Mathew Paris alone, and evidently as a -matter of tradition, must be accepted with considerable caution. He -makes the singular and careless mistake of speaking of Earl Geoffrey as -William (_sic_) de Mandeville, though he properly terms him, the -following year, "Gaufridus consul de Mandeville." On the other hand, it -is possible to apply a test which yields not unsatisfactory results. -Mathew tells us that the Earl of Arundel was unhorsed "a Walkelino de -Oxeai [_alias_ Oxehaie] milite strenuissimo." Now there was, -contemporary with Mathew himself, a certain Richard "de Oxeya," who held -by knight-service of St. Albans Abbey, and who, in 1245, was jointly -responsible with "Petronilla de Crokesle" for the service of one knight -(_Chron. Majora_, vi. 437). Turning to a list of the abbey's knights, -which is dated by the editor in the Rolls Series as "1258," but which is -quite certainly some hundred years earlier, we find this same knight's -fee held jointly by Richard "de Crokesle" and a certain "Walchelinus." -Here then we may perhaps recognize that very "Walchelinus de Oxeai" who -figures in Mathew's story, a story which Richard "de Oxeya" may have -told him as a family tradition. Indeed, there is evidence to prove that -this identification is correct. - -[631] The coincidence of language between these two passages, beginning -respectively "eodem tempore" and "eodem anno," ought to be noticed, for -it has been overlooked by Mr. Howlett in his valuable edition of William -of Newburgh for the Rolls Series, though he notes those on p. 34 before -it, and on p. 48 after it, in his instructive remarks on the -indebtedness of William of Newburgh to others (p. xxvi.). - -[632] "Vir iste nobilis, cæteris in pace recedentibus, solus, rege -jubente, fraudulenter comprehensus, et, ne abiret, custodibus -designatis, detentus est" (_Mon. Ang._, iv. 142). - -[633] "Ne regia majestas turpi proditionis opprobio infamaretur." - -[634] "Milites autem beati Albani, qui tunc, ad ecclesiæ ejus custodiam -et villæ fossatis circumdatæ, ipsum vicum, qui juxta cænobium est, -inhabitabant, ipsi regi in faciem viriliter restiterunt, donec ecclesiæ, -quam quidam ex regiis ædituis violaverant, satisfecisset ipse rex, et -ejus temerarii invasores.... Et hoc fecit rex contra jusjurandum, quod -fecerat apud Sanctum Albanum, et contra statuta concilii nuper, eo -consentiente, celebrati" (Mathew Paris, _Historia Anglorum_, i. 271). - -[635] An incidental allusion to this conflict between the followers of -the king and the abbey's knights is to be found, I think, in a curious -passage in the _Gesta Abbatum S. Albani_ (i. 94). We there read of Abbot -Geoffrey (1119-1146): "Tabulam quoque unam ex auro et argento et gemmis -electis artificiose constructam ad longitudinem et latitudinem altaris -Sancti Albani, quam deinde, ingruente maxima necessitate, idem Abbas in -igne conflavit et in massam confregit. Quam dedit Comiti de Warrena et -Willelmo de Ypra et Comiti de Arundel et Willelmo Martel, temporibus -Regis Stephani, _Villam Sancti Albani volentibus concremare_." The -conjunction of William of Ypres with Abbot Geoffrey dates this incident -within the limits 1139-1146, and there is no episode to which it can be -so fitly assigned as this of 1143, especially as the Earl of Arundel -figures in both versions. - -[636] "Et licet multi amicorum suorum, talia ei injuste illata ægre -ferentium, pro eo regem interpellarent" (_Mon. Ang._, iv. 142). - -[637] "Rex igitur Galfridum, custodiis arctissime adhibitis, Londonias -adducens, ni turrim et quæ miro labore et artificio erexerat castella in -manus ejus committeret, suspendio cruciari paravit; cum salubri amicorum -persuasus consilio, ut imminens inhonestæ mortis periculum, castellis -redditis, devitaret, regis voluntati tandem satisfecit" (_Gesta_, p. -104). "Igitur, ut rex liberaret eum reddidit ei turrim Lundoniæ et -castellum de Waledene et illud de Plaisseiz" (_Hen. Hunt._, p. 276). -"Eique arcem Lundoniensem cum duobus reliquis quæ possidebat castellis -extorsit [rex]" (_W. Newburgh_, i. 45). The castle of (Saffron) Walden, -with the surrounding district, was placed by Stephen in charge of Turgis -d'Avranches, whom we have met with before, and who refused, some two -years later, to admit the king to it (_Gesta_, ed. Howlett, p. 101). Mr. -Howlett appears to have confused it with another castle which Stephen -took "in the Lent of 1139," for Walden was Geoffrey's hereditary seat -and had always been in his hands. - -[638] "Regnique totius communem ad jacturam, tali modo liberatus de -medio illorum evasit" (_Gesta_, p. 104). "Quo facto, velut equus validus -et infrænis, morsibus, calcibus quoslibet obvios dilaniare non cessavit" -(_Mon. Ang._, iv. 142). - -[639] "Episcopus vero Elyensis pro tam imminenti sibi negotio auxilium -Dominæ Imperatricis et suorum colloquium requirendum putavit" (_Anglia -Sacra_, i. 622). - -[640] This might lead us to suppose that the incident belonged to the -latter half of 1142, when Wareham was in the king's hands. The date -(1143), however, cannot be in question. - -[641] _Historia Eliensis_, p. 623. Theobald, from his Angevin -sympathies, supported Nigel's cause. - -[642] See Appendix Z: "Bishop Nigel at Rome." - -[643] "Hugone quoque, cognomente Bigot, viro illustri et in illis -partibus potenti, sibi confœderato" (_Gesta_, p. 106). - -[644] _Mon. Ang._, iv. 142. - -[645] "Homines regis erga locum fratrum Ely insidias unanimiter -paraverunt, adversum quos cum custodes insulæ non sufficerent rebellare, -Galfridum comitem, tunc adversarium [Stephani regis,] incendiis patriam -et seditione perturbantem, suscipiunt; cui etiam castrum de Ely, atque -Alrehede, ob firmamentum tuitionis, submiserunt" (_Historia Eliensis_, -p. 623). - -[646] Here again we are indebted for the date to the London Chronicle -(_Liber de Ant. Leg._, fol. 35), which states that Geoffrey "in adventu -Domini fecit castellum Ecclesiam de Rameseya." Geoffrey's doings may -well have been of special interest to the Londoners. - -[647] "Ira humanum excedente modum, ita efferatus est, ut procurantibus -Willelmo de Saye et Daniele quodam falsi nominis ac tonsuræ monacho, -navigio cum suis subvectus Rameseiam peteret, ecclesiam Deo ac beato -patri Benedicto dicatam summo mane ausu temerario primitus invadendo -subintraret, monachosque omnes post divinum nocturnale officium sopori -deditos comprehenderet, et vix habitu simplici indutos expellendo statim -perturbaret, nullaque interveniente mora, ecclesiam illam satis -pulcherrimam, non ut Dei castrum sed sicut castellum, superius ac -inferius, intus ac extra, fortiter munivit" (_Mon. Ang._, iv. 142). - -"Hic totus in rabiem invectus Ramesiam, nobile monasterium invadens, -fugata monachorum caterva, custodiam posuit" (_Leland's Collectanea_, i. -600). - -[648] _Chronicon Abbatiæ Ramesiensis_, pp. 327-329. - -[649] "Monachis expulsis, raptores immisit, et ecclesiam Dei speluncam -fecit latronum" (_Hen. Hunt._, p. 277). - -[650] "Vasa autem altaris aurea et argentea Deo sacrata, capas etiam -cantorum lapidibus preciosis ac opere mirifico contextas, casulis cum -albis, et cæteris ecclesiastici decoris ornamentis rapuit, et -quibuslibet eruere volentibus vili satis precio distraxit unde militibus -et satellitibus suis debita largitus est stipendia" (_Mon. Ang._, iv. -142). "Cœnobiumque sancti Benedicti de Rameseiâ non solum, captis -monachorum spoliis, altaribus quoque et sanctorum reliquiis nudatis, -expilavit, sed etiam expulsis incompassive monachis de monasterio, -militibusque impositis castellum sibi adaptavit" (_Gesta_, p. 105). "Cum -manu forti monasterium ipsum occupavit, monachos dispersit, thesaurum et -omnia ecclesiæ ornamenta sacrilega manu surripuit et ex ipso monasterio -stabulum fecit equorum, villas adjacentes commilitonibus pro stipendiis -distribuit" (_Chron. Ram._, p. 329). - -[651] "Galfridus igitur, ubique in regno fide sibi et hominio conjuratis -in unum secum cuneum convocatis, gregariæ quoque militiæ sed et -prædonum, qui undecumque devote concurrerant, robustissima manu in suum -protinus conspirata collegium, ignibus et gladio ubique locorum -desævire" (_Gesta_, p. 105). "Crebris eruptionibus atque excursionibus -vicinas infestavit provincias" (_W. Newburgh_, i. 45). - -[652] "Castellum quoddam fecerat apud Waltone" (_Chron. Ram._, p. 332). - -[653] "Inde recessum habuit per Ely quiete: Fordham quoque contra hostes -sibi cum valida manu firmare usurpavit" (_Historia Eliensis_, p. 623). - -[654] "Similiter apud Benewik in transitu aquarum" (_ibid._). - -[655] "Omnia adversus regiæ partis consentaneos abripere et consumere, -nudare et destruere" (_Gesta_, p. 105). "Maneria, villas, ceteraque -proprietatem regiam contingentia primitus invasit, igni combussit, -prædasque cum rapinis non minimis inde sublatas commilitonibus suis -larga manu distribuit" (_Monasticon_, iv. 142). - -[656] _Cont. Flor. Wig._, ii. 119, 128. Compare the Peterborough -Chronicle: "Ræuedan hi & brendon alle the tunes" (_Ang. Sax. Chron._, i. -382). - -[657] _Gesta._ - -[658] "Talique ferocitate in omnem circumquaque provinciam, in omnibus -etiam, quascunque obviam habebat, ecclesiis immiseranter desæviit; -possessiones cœnobiorum, distractis rebus, depopulatis omnibus in -solitudinem redegit; sanctuaria eorum, vel quæcumque in ærariis -concredita reponebantur sine metu vel pietate ferox abripuit" (_ibid._). - -[659] "Locis sacris vel ipsis de ecclesiis nullam deferendo exhibuit -reverentiam" (_Monasticon_, iv. 142). - -[660] "Facti enim amentes cantitabat unusquisque Anglice," etc. The -"Anglice" reads oddly. Strange that the sufferings of the people should -be bewailed and made merry over in the same tongue! - -[661] Stephen himself behaved no better, to judge from the story in the -_Chronicle of Abingdon_ (ii. 292), where it is alleged that the king, -being informed of a large sum of money stored in the treasury of the -abbey, sent his satellite, William d'Ypres, who, gaining admission on -the plea of prayer, broke open the chest with an axe, and carried off -the treasure. - -[662] "Militum suorum numerositate immanior factus, per totam -circumcirca discurrendo provinciam nulli cuicunque pecuniam possidenti -parcere vovit" (_Mon. Ang._, iv. 142). - -"Crebris eruptionibus et excursionibus vicinas infestavit provincias. -Deinde sumpta ex successu fiducia longius progrediens, regem Stephanum -acerrimis fatigavit terruitque incursibus" (_Will. Newb._, i. 45). - -[663] _Gesta._ - -[664] "Exploratores vero illius, habitu mutato, more egenorum ostiatim -oberrantes, villanis et cæteris hujusmodi hominibus pecunia a Deo data -abundantibus insidiabantur, quibus taliter compertis intempestæ noctis -silentio, tempore tamen primitus considerato, Sathanæ satellites a -comite transmittebantur qui viros innocuos alto sopore quandoque -detentos raperent raptos vero quasi pro magno munere ei presentarent. -Qui mox immani supplicio, per intervalla tamen, vexabantur et tamdiu per -tormenta varia vicissim sibi succedentia torquebantur, donec pecuniæ eis -impositæ ultimum solverent quadrantem" (_Monasticon_, iv. 142). An -incidental allusion to this system of robbery by ransom is found in an -inquisition (_temp._ John) on the royal manor of Writtle, Essex (_Testa -de Nevill_, p. 270 _b_). It is there recorded that Godebold of Writtle, -who held land at Boreham, was captured by Geoffrey and forced to -mortgage his land to raise the means for his ransom: "Godebold de -Writel' qui eam tenuit captus a comite Galfrido, patre Willelmi de -Mandevilla, tempore regis Stephani, pro redemptione sua versus predictum -comitem acquietanda posuit in vadimonium," etc. - -[665] "Propterea Rex Stephanus, irâ graviter accensus, omnia hæc -reputavit ab Episcopo Nigello machinari; et jussit e vestigio -possessiones Ecclesiæ a suis undequaque distrahi in vindictam odiorum -ejus. Succisâ igitur Monachis rerum facultate suarum, nimis ægre -compelluntur in Ecclesiâ, maxime ciborum inedia. Unde non habentes -victuum, gementes et anxii reliquas thesaurorum," etc. (_Historia -Eliensis_, p. 623). - -[666] _Cotton. MS._, Tib. A. vi. fol. 117. - -[667] "Hæc omnia episcopo, quamvis Romæ longius commoranti, satis -innotuerunt, et gratiâ Domini Papæ sublimiter donatus, his munimentis -tandem roboratus contra deprimentum ingenia, ad domum gaudens rediit" -(_Historia Eliensis_, p. 623). - -[668] _Cotton. MS._, Tib. A. vi. fol. 116 _b_. See Appendix AA: -"Tenserie." - -[669] _Chronicle of Ramsey_, p. 329. - -[670] "Quum autem negotium feliciter ibi consummasset, reversus in -Angliam infra tres menses per judices delegatos abbatiam suam, Rege -super hoc multum murmurante, recuperavit" (_ibid._, p. 330). - -[671] "Quum vero sæpedictus abbas in possessionem abbatiæ suæ -corporaliter mitti debuisset, invenit sceleratam familiam prædicti -comitis sibi fortiter resistentem. Sed ipse, Spiritu Dei plenus, inter -sagittas et gladios ipsorum sæpius in caput ejus vibratos, accessit -intrepidus, ignem arripuit, et tentoria ipsorum portamque exteriorem -quam incastellaverant viriliter incendit et combussit. Sed nec propter -incendium nec propter anathema quod in eos fuerat sententiatum locum -amatum deserere vel abbati cedere voluerunt. Creditur a multis -miraculose factum esse quod nullus ex insanis prædonibus illis manus in -eum misit dum eorum tecta combureret quamvis lanceis et sagittis, multum -irati, dum hæc faceret, mortem ei cominus intentarent" (_ibid._). - -[672] "Aliud etiam illis diebus fertur contigisse miraculum, quod -lapides murorum ecclesiæ Ramesensis, claustri etiam et officinarum quas -prædones inhabitaverant, in magna quantitate guttas sanguinis emiserunt, -unde per totam Angliam rumor abiit admirabilis, et magnæ super hoc -habitæ sunt inter omnes ad invicem collationes. Erat enim quasi -notorium, et omnibus intueri volentibus visu et tactu manifestum" -(_ibid._). - -[673] "Dum autem ecclesia illa pro castello teneretur, ebullivit sanguis -a parietibus ecclesie et claustri adjacentis, indignationem divinam -manifestans, exterminationem sceleratorum denuntians; quod multi quidem, -et ipse ego, oculis meis inspexi" (_Hen. Hunt._, p. 277). - -[674] "Miserabilis abbas iste post tot labores et ærumnas quietem habere -et domum suam recuperasse sperabat a qua dolens et exspes recessit, -laboribus expensis ita fatigatus ut jam tæderet eum vivere. Non enim -habebat unde modice familiæ suæ equitaturas et sumptus necessarios -posset providere" (_Chron. Ram._, p. 331). - -[675] "In omnibus terris dominicis totius abbatiæ unam tantum carucam -reperit et dimidiam, reperit victualium nihil; debitum urgebat; terræ -jacebant incultæ.... Oportuit præfatum abbatem xxiiii castell[?anis] -vel amplius singulis mensibus pro rusticis suis redemptiones seu -tenserias præstare, qui tam per Danielem quam per ipsos malefactores -multum exhausti fuerant, et extenuati" (_Chron. Ram._, 333, 334). This -description, though it is applied to the state of things which awaited -the abbot on Earl Geoffrey's death, is obviously in point here. It is of -importance for its allusion to the plough, which illustrates the -language of Domesday (the plough-teams being always the first to suffer, -and the most serious loss: compare Bishop Denewulf's tenth-century -charter in _Liber de Hyda_), but still more for its mention of the -_tenseriæ_. Here we have the very same word, used at the very same time, -at Peterborough, Ramsey, and Ely. The correction, therefore, of the -English Chronicle is utterly unjustifiable (see Appendix AA). Moreover, -a comparison of this passage with the letter of Pope Lucius (_ante_, p. -215) shows that at Ramsey, as at Ely, the evil effect of this state of -things continued in these _tenseriæ_ even after the bishop and the abbot -had respectively regained possession. - -[676] "Suorum tandem consilio fretus, comitem Gaufridum adiit, -monasterii sui detentorem, patenter et audacter ei ostendens tam ipsum -quam totam familiam ipsius, tam ex ipso facto quam apostolica -auctoritate interveniente, a Christianâ communione esse privatos, domum -suam sibi postulans restitui si vellet absolvi. Quod comes vix patienter -audiens, plures ei terminos de reddenda possessione sua constituit, sed -promissum nunquam adimplevit ita ut cum potius deludere videretur quam -ablatam possessionem sibi velle restituere; unde miser abbas -miserabiliter afflictus mortis debitum jam vellet exsolvisse" (_Chron. -Ram._, p. 331). - -[677] "Sed prophani milites in sua malitia pertinaces nec sic domum Dei -quam polluerant reddere voluerant; induratum enim erat cor eorum" -(_ibid._, p. 330). - -[678] "Oppresserat enim fames omnem regionem; et ægra seges victum omnem -negaverat; per viginti milliaria seu triginta non bos non aratrum est -inventus qui particulam terræ excoleret; vix parvissimus tunc modius emi -poterat ducentis denariis. Tantaque hominum clades de inopiâ panis -sequuta est, ut per vicos et plateas centeni et milleni ad instar uteris -inflati exanimes jacerent: feris et volatilibus cadavera inhumata -relinquebantur. Nam multo retro tempore talis tribulatio non fuit in -cunctis terrarum regnis" (_Historia Eliensis_, p. 623). - -[679] "Efferbuit enim per totam Angliam Stephani regis hostilis -tribulatio, totaque insula vi potius quam ratione regebatur" (_Chron. -Ram._, p. 334). - -[680] "Potentes, per circuitum late vastando, milites ex rapinâ -conducunt; villas comburunt: captivos de longe ducentes miserabiliter -tractabant; pios alligabant in compedibus et nobiles in manicis ferreis" -(_Historia Eliensis_, p. 623). - -[681] "Furit itaque rabies vesana. Invicta lætatur malitia: non sexui -non parcunt ætati. Mille mortis species inferunt, ut ab afflictis -pecuniam excutiant: fit clamor dirus plangentium: inhorruit luctus -ubique mærentium; et constat fuisse completum quod nunciatur in -Apocalypsi Joannis: 'quærent homines mori et fugiet mors ab eis'" -(_ibid._). - -[682] "Sed verum est quod vulgariter dicitur: 'Ubi dolor maximus ibi -proxima consolatio'" (_Chron. Ram._, p. 331). - -[683] "Herba viridissima emarcuit, ut eo surgente quasi præmortua -videretur, nec toto fere anno viridatis suæ vires recuperavit. Unde -datur intelligi quam detestandum sit consortium excommunicatorum" -(_Gervase_, i. p. 128). - -[684] "Accessit paulo post cum exercitu suo ad quoddam castellum -expugnandum quod apud Burewelle de novo fuerat constructum, et quum -elevata casside illud circuiret ut infirmiorem ejus partem eligeret ad -expugnandum, ... quidam vilissimus sagittarius ex hiis qui intra -castellum erant capiti ipsius comitis lethale vulnus impressit" (_Chron. -Ram._, 331, 332). - -"Hic, cum ... in obsidione supradicti castelli de Burwelle in scuto et -lancea contra adversarios viriliter decertasset, ob nimium calorem -cassidem deposuit, et loricæ ventilabrum solvit, sicque nudato capite -intrepidus militavit. Æstus quippe erat. Quem cum vidisset quispiam de -castello, et adversarium agnosceret, telo gracili quod ganea dicitur eum -jam cominus positum petiit, que testam capitis ipsius male nudati -perforavit" (_Gervase_, i. 128). - -"Dum nimis audax, nimisque prudentiæ suæ innitens regiæ virtutis -castella frequentius circumstreperet, ab ipsis tandem regalibus -circumventus prosternitur" (_Gesta_, p. 106). - -"Post hujusmodi tandem excessibus aliisque multis his similibus publicam -anathematis non immerito incurrit sententiam, in qua apud quoddam -oppidulum in Burwella lethaliter in capite vulneratus est" (_Mon. Ang._, -iv. 142). - -"Inter acies suorum confertas, a quodam pedite vilissimo solus sagitta -percussus est. Et ipse, vulnus ridens, post dies tamen ex ipso vulnere -excommunicatus occubuit" (_Hen. Hunt._, 276). - -[685] "In quodam prædio consisteret quod ... ad Ramesense monasterium -pertinebat, et pertinet usque in hodiernum diem.... Quod iccirco in -fundo beati Benedicti factum fuisse creditur ut omnes intelligere -possent quod Deus ultionum dominus hoc fecerat in odium et vindictam -injuriarum quas monasterio beati Benedicti sacrilegus comes intulerat" -(_Chron. Ram._, p. 331). - -[686] "Cum nollet satisfacere, placuit fratribus ibidem Deo servientibus -in transgressionis huius vindictam Crucem deponere si forte dives ille -compunctus hoc facto vellet rescipiscere. Tradunt autem qui hiis -inquirendis diligentiam adhibuerunt eadem depositionis hora Comitem -illum ante castrum de Burewelle ad quod expugnandum diligenter operam -dabat letale vulnus suscepisse et eo infra xl dies viam universe Carnis -ingressum fuisse" (_Harl. MS._, 3776). See also Appendix M. - -[687] "Verum tantarum tamque immanium persecutionum, tam crudelium -quoque, quas in omnes ingerebat, calamitatum justissimus tandem -respector Deus dignum malitiæ suæ finem imposuit" (_Gesta_, p. 106). - -"Quia igitur improbi dixerunt Deum dormitare, excitatus est Deus, et in -hoc signo, et in significato" (_Hen. Hunt._, p. 277). - -[688] "Letiferum sui capitis vulnus deridens nec sic a suo cessavit -furore" (_Gervase_, i. 128, 129). - -[689] "Pœnitens itaque valde et Deo cum magna cordis contritione pro -peccatis suis supplicans, quantum taliter moriens poterat, Deo et -hominibus satisfecit, licet a præsentibus absolvi non poterat" (_Mon. -Ang._, iv. 142). Cf. p. 202, _supra_. - -[690] "Quum igitur apud Mildehale mortis angustia premeretur, hoc -audiens præfatus abbas ad eum citissime convolavit. Quo cum venisset, -nec erat in ipso comite vox neque sensus, familiares tamen ipsius, -domino suo multum condolentes, eum benigne receperunt et cum literis -ipsius comitis eum ad filium suum scilicet Ernaldum de Magna Villa ... -statim miserunt ut sine mora cœnobium suum sibi restitueret" (_Chron. -Ram._, p. 332). - -[691] "Gaufridus de Magna Villa regem validissime vexavit et in omnibus -gloriosus effulsit. Mense autem Augusti miraculum justitia sua dignum -Dei splendor exhibuit" (_Hen. Hunt._, p. 277). - -[692] "Et sicut, dum viveret, ecclesiam confudit, terram turbavit, sic, -ad eum confundendum tota Angliæ conspiravit ecclesia; quia et -anathematis gladio percussus et inabsolutus abscessit, et terræ -sacrilegum dari non licuit" (_Gesta_, p. 106). - -[693] "Illo autem, in discrimine mortis, ultimum trahente spiritum, -quidam supervenere Templarii qui religionis suæ habitum cruce rubea -signatum ei imposuerunt" (_Mon. Ang._, _ut supra_). But the red cross is -said not to have been assumed by the order till the time of Pope Eugene -(1145). See _Monasticon Ang._, ii. 815, 816. - -[694] "Ac deinde jam mortuum secum tollentes, et in pomerio suo, veteris -scilicet Templi apud London' canali inclusum plumbeo in arbore torva -suspenderunt" (_Mon. Ang._, iv. 142). - -"Corpus vero defuncti comitis in trunco quodam signatum, et propter -anathema quo fuerat innodatus Londoniis apud Vetus Templum extra -cimiterium in antro quodam projectum est" (_Chron. Ram._, p. 332). This -would seem to be the earliest mention of the Old Temple. _Pomerium_ in -Low Latin is, of course, an orchard, and not, as Mr. Freeman so -strangely imagines (at Nottingham, in Domesday), a town wall. - -[695] "Post aliquod vero tempus industria et expensis Willelmi quem jam -pridem in Waldena constituerat priorem, a papa Alexandro, more taliter -decedentium meruit absolvi, inter Christianos recipi, et pro eo divina -celebrari" (_Mon. Ang._, iv. 142). - -[696] "Ibique jacuit toto tempore Regis Stephani magnaque parte Regis -Henrici Secundi, donec Gaufridus filius ejus, Comes Essexie, vir -industrius et justitiarius Domini Regis jam factus Dominum Willelmum -abbatem cæpit humiliter interpellare pro patre suo defuncto offerens -satisfactionem, et quum ab eo benignum super hoc responsum accepisset, -statuta die convenerunt ambo sub præsentia domini Cantuarensis, scilicet -beati Thomæ martyris, super hoc tractaturi.... Quo facto, pater ipsius -comitis Christianæ traditus est sepulturæ." - -The earl's grant runs as follows:— - -"Gaufridus de Magna Villa Comes Essexie, omnibus amicis suis et -hominibus et universis sanctæ Ecclesiæ filiis salutem. - -"Satis notum est quanta damna pater meus, Comes Gaufridus, tempore -guerrarum monasterio de Rameseia irrogaverit. - -"Et quia tanta noxia publico dinoscitur indigere remedio, ego tam pro eo -quam pro suis satisfacere volens, consilio sanctæ Ecclesiæ cum Willelmo -Abbate monachisque suprascripti cœnobii in hanc formam composui.... Et -quia constat sepedictum patrem meum in irrogatione damnorum memoratæ -ecclesiæ bona thesauri in cappis, et textis, et hujusmodi plurimum -delapidasse, ad eorundem reparationem ad ecclesiæ ornatum dignum duxi -redditum istum assignari" (_Cart. Ram._, i. 197). Compare p. 276, _n._ -3, and p. 415. - -[697] _Chron. Ram._, pp. 306, 333. The king was probably at Windsor at -the time, and the date is a useful one for Becket's movements. - -[698] A curious archæological question is raised by this date. According -to the received belief, the Templars did not remove to the New Temple -till 1185, but, according to this evidence, they already had their -churchyard there consecrated in 1163, and had therefore, we may presume, -begun their church. The church of the New Temple was consecrated by -Heraclius on his visit in 1185, but may have been finished sooner. - -[699] "Cumque Prior ille corpus defunctum deponere et secum Waldenam -deferre satageret, Templarii illi caute premeditati statim illud -tollentes, et in cimiterio novi templi ignobili satis tradiderunt -sepulturæ" (_Mon. Ang._, iv. 142). It was generally believed that his -effigy was among those remaining at the Temple, but this supposition is -erroneous, as has been shown by Mr. J. G. Nichols in an elaborate -article on "The Effigy attributed to Geoffrey de Magnaville, and the -Other Effigies in the Temple Church" (_Herald and Genealogist_ (1866), -iii. 97, _et seq._). - - - - - CHAPTER X. - THE EARLDOM OF ESSEX. - - -The death of Geoffrey was a fatal blow to the power of the fenland -rebels. According, indeed, to one authority, his brother-in-law, William -de Say, met his death on the same occasion,[700] but it was the decease -of the great earl which filled the king's supporters with exultant joy -and hope.[701] For a time Ernulf, his son and heir, clung to the abbey -fortress, but at length, sorely against his will, he gave up possession -to the monks.[702] Before the year was out, he was himself made prisoner -and straightway banished from the realm.[703] Nor was the vengeance of -Heaven even yet complete. The chief officer of the wicked earl was -thrown from his horse and killed,[704] and the captain of his foot, who -had made himself conspicuous in the violating and burning of churches, -met, as he fled beyond the sea, with the fate of Jonah, and worse.[705] - -Chroniclers and genealogists have found it easiest to ignore the -subsequent fate of Ernulf (or Ernald) de Mandeville.[706] He has even -been conveniently disposed of by the statement that he died -childless.[707] It may therefore fairly be described as a genealogical -surprise to establish the fact, beyond a shadow of doubt, not only that -he left issue, but that his descendants flourished for generations, -heirs in the direct male line of this once mighty house. Ernulf himself -first reappears, early in the following reign, as a witness to a royal -charter confirming Ernald _de Bosco's_ foundation at Betlesdene.[708] He -also occurs as a principal witness in a family charter, about the same -time.[709] This document,[710] which is addressed by Earl Geoffrey -"baronibus suis," is a confirmation of a grant of lands in -Sawbridgeworth, by his tenant Warine fitz Gerold "Camerarius Regis" and -his brother Henry, to Robert Blund of London, who is to hold them "de -predictis baronibus meis." The witnesses are: "Roesia Com[itissa] matre -mea, Eust[achia] Com[itissa], Ernulfo de Mannavilla fratre meo, Willelmo -filio Otuwel patruo meo, Mauricio vicecomite, Willelmo de Moch' -capellano meo, Otuwel de bouile, Ricardo filio Osberti, Radulfo de -Bernires, Willelmo et Ranulfo fil' Ernaldi, Gaufrido de Gerp[en]villa, -Hugone de Augo, Waltero de Mannavilla, Willelmo filio Alfredi, Gaufredo -filio Walteri, Willelmo de Plaisiz, Gaufrido pincerna." He is, -doubtless, also the "Ernald de Mandevill" who holds a knight's fee, in -Yorkshire, of Ranulf fitz Walter in 1166.[711] But in the earliest -Pipe-Rolls of Henry II. he is already found as a grantee of _terræ datæ_ -in Wilts., to the amount of £11 10_s._ 0_d._ (blanch) "in Wurda." This -grant was not among those repudiated by Henry II., and Geoffrey de -Mandeville, Ernulf's heir, was still in receipt of the same sum in -1189[712] and 1201-2.[713] Later on, in a list of knights' fees in -Wilts., which must belong, from the mention of Earl William de -Longespée, to 1196-1226, and is probably _circ._ 1212, we read: -"Galfridus de Mandevill tenet in Wurth duas partes unius militis de -Rege."[714] That Ernulf should have received a grant in Wilts., a county -with which his family was not connected, is probably accounted for by -the fact that he obtained it in the time of the Empress, who, as in the -case of Humfrey de Bohun, found the revenues of Wilts. convenient as a -means of rewarding her partisans.[715] But we now come to a series of -charters of the highest importance for this discovery. These were -preserved among the muniments of Henry Beaufoe of Edmondescote, county -Warwick, Esq., when they were seen by Dugdale, who does not, however, in -his _Baronage_, allude to their evidence. By the first of these Earl -Geoffrey (died 1166) grants to his brother Ernulf one knight's fee in -Kingham, county Oxon.:— - - "Sciatis me dedisse et firmiter concessisse Ernulfo de Mandavilla - fratri meo terram de Caingeham, ... pro servitio unius militis in - excambitione terre Radulfi de Nuer.... Et si Caingeham illi garantizare - non potero dabo illi excambium ad valorem de Caingeham antequam inde - sit dissaisitus.... T. Com[ite] Albrico auunculo meo, Henry (_sic_) - fil[io] Ger[oldi], Galfr[ido] Arsic, Rad[ulf]o de Berner[iis], Waltero - de Mandavilla, Will[elm]o de Aino, Galfrido de Jarpeuill, Will[elmo] de - Plais', Jurdan[o] de Taid', Hug[one] de Auc[o], Willelm[o] fil[io] - Alured[i] Rad[ulfo] Magn[?avilla], Audoenus (_sic_) Pincerna, Rad[ulfo] - frater (_sic_) eius, Aluredus (_sic_) Predevilain."[716] - -Ralph "de Nuers," is entered in 1166 as a former holder of four fees -from Earl Geoffrey (II.).[717] Of the witnesses to the charter,[718] -Henry fitz Gerold (probably the chamberlain) held four fees (_de novo_) -of the earl in 1166, Ralph de Berners four (_de veteri_), Walter de -Mandeville four (_de veteri_), Geoffrey de Jarpe[n]ville one (_de -novo_), Hugh de Ou and William fitz Alfred one each (_de novo_), -"Audoenus Pincerna" and Ralph his brother the fifth of a fee (_de novo_) -jointly. The relative precedence, according to holding, is not unworthy -of notice. The second charter is from Earl William, confirming his -brother's gift:— - - "Willelmus de Mandavilla comes Essexie Omnibus hominibus, etc. Sciatis - me concessisse Ernulfo de Mandauilla fratri meo donationem quam Comes - Galfridus illi fecit de villa de Kahingeham.... T. Comite Albrico, - Simone de Bellocampo, Gaufrido de Say, Will[elm]o de Bouilla, Radu[lfo] - de Berneres, Seawal' de Osonuilla, Ric[ard]o de Rochellâ, Osberto - fil[io] Ric[ard]i, Dauid de Gerponuilla, Wiscardo Leidet, Waltero de - Bareuilla, Albot Fulcino, Hugone clerico," etc.[719] - -Here Earl "Alberic" was uncle both to the grantor and the grantee; Simon -de Beauchamp was their uterine brother; Geoffrey de Say their first -cousin. William de Boville would be related to Otuel de Boville, the -chief tenant of Mandeville in 1166.[720] "Sewalus de Osevill" then -(1166) held four fees (_de veteri_) of the earl. Richard "de Rochellâ" -held three-quarters of a fee (_de novo_). Osbert fitz Richard was -probably a son of Richard fitz Osbert, who held four fees (_de veteri_) -in 1166. Wiscard Ledet was a tenant _in capite_ in Oxfordshire (_Testa_, -p. 103).[721] - -The third charter transfers the fee from the grantee himself to his son:— - - "Notum sit ... quod ego Arnulfus de Mandeuilla concessi et dedi Radulfo - de Mandeuilla filio meo pro suo servicio et homagio villam de - Chaingeham ... et hospitium meum Oxenfordie ad prædictam villam - pertinens[722] ... T. Henrico Danuers," etc.[723] - -From another quarter we are enabled to continue the chain of evidence. -We have first a charter to Osney:— - - "Ego Gaufridus de Mandeuile ... confirmavi mercatam terre quam Aaliz - mater mea eis diuisit in Hugato, sic[?ut] Ernulfus de Mandeuile pater - meus eis assignavit."[724] - -Then we have a charter which thus carries us a step further:— - - "Ego Galfridus de Mandeuilla filius Galfridi de Mandeuillâ concessi - Domino Galfrido patri meo, filio Arnulfi de Mandeuillâ," etc., etc.[725] - -Among the witnesses to this last charter are Robert de Mandeville, and -Ralph his brother, and Hugh de Mandeville. Lastly, we have a charter of -Ralph de Mandeville, to which the first witness is "Galfridus de -Mandauilla frater meus."[726] - -We have now established this pedigree:— - - GEOFFREY, = Roese - EARL OF ESSEX, | de Vere. - d. 1144. | - +--------+ - | - Ernulf = Aaliz. - de Mandeville, | - son and heir | - (disinherited). | - | - +-------------+---------+ - | | - Geoffrey Ralph - de Mandeville. de Mandeville. - | - Geoffrey - de Mandeville. - -A further charter (_Harl. Cart._, 54, I. 44) can now be fitted into this -pedigree. It is a notification by Adam de Port, to the Bishop of -Lincoln, etc., of his grant of the church of "Hattele." The witnesses -are: "Hernaldo de Mandeville et domina Alicia uxore sua, domina -Matiltide uxore dicti Adæ de Port, Henrico de Port, fratre ejusdem, -Galfrido de Mandeville," etc.[727] Here we have a clue to the parentage -of Ernulf's wife. - -Passing to the reign of Henry III., we find Kingham then still in -possession of the family.[728] In Wiltshire they are found yet later, -Worth being still held by them in 1292-93 (21 Edw. I).[729] - -The importance of the existence of Ernulf and his heirs is seen when we -come to deal with the fate of the earldom of Essex. That Ernulf was -"exiled" even for a time becomes a remarkable fact, when we remember -that he might have found shelter from the king among the followers of -the Empress in the west. But he and his father had offended a power -greater than the king. The Empress could not shield him from the -vengeance of the outraged Church. It is, I think, in his doings at -Ramsey, and in the penalties he had thus incurred, that we must seek the -reason of his being, as we shall find, so strangely passed over, in -favour of his younger brother Geoffrey, who had not partaken of his -guilt. - -To another charter, hitherto unknown, we owe our knowledge of the fact -that Geoffrey was recognized as his father's heir, by the Empress, on -his death. Instructive as its contents would doubtless be, it is known -to us only from the following note, made by one who had inspected its -transcript in the lost volume of the Great Coucher:— - - "Carta M. Imperatricis per quam dat Gaufredo de Mannevill filio - Gaufredi Comitis Essexie totam hereditatem suam et omnes tenuras quas - concessit patri suo. Testes R. Com. Gloec., Rag. Com. Cornub., Rog. - Com. Hereford, R. Regis filio, Umfridus de Bohun Dap., Johannes filius - Gisleberti, W. de Pontlarch' Camerario. Apud Divisas.[730] - -The names of Robert, Earl of Gloucester, and Roger, Earl of Hereford, -limit the date of this charter to 1144-1147, and the father of the -grantee died, as we have seen, in August, 1144. It should be noted that -nothing is said here of the earldom of Essex, and that only an -absolutely new creation could confer the dignity on Geoffrey, as he was -not his father's heir. - -Here, however, yet another charter, also at present unknown, comes to -our assistance with its unique evidence that Geoffrey must have held his -father's title before 1147.[731] He then disappears from view for the -time. - -We must now skip some twelve years, and pass to that most important -charter in which the earldom was conferred anew on Geoffrey by Henry II. -Only those who have made a special study of these subjects can realize -the value of this charter, a record hitherto unknown. The attitude of -Henry II. to the creations of Stephen and Matilda, the extent to which -he recognized them, and the method in which he did so, are subjects on -which the historian is peculiarly anxious for information, but on which -our existing evidence is singularly and lamentably slight. Of the four -charters quoted in the _Reports on the Dignity of a Peer_, only two can -be said to have a real bearing on the question, and of these one is of -uncertain date, while the meaning of the other is doubtful. But the -charter I am about to deal with is remarkably clear in its meaning, and -possesses the advantage that its contents enable us to date it with -precision. - -The original charter was formerly preserved in the Cottonian collection, -but was doubtless among those which perished in the disastrous -fire.[732] The copy of it made by Dugdale, and now among his MSS. at -Oxford, is unfortunately imperfect, but the discovery of an independent -copy among the Rawlinson MSS. has enabled me not only to fill the gaps -in Dugdale's copy (which I have here placed within brackets), but also -to establish by collation the accuracy of the text. - - CHARTER OF HENRY II. TO GEOFFREY DE MANDEVILLE THE YOUNGER (Jan. 1156). - -H. Rex Angl[orum] (et) Dux Normannie et Aquitanie et Comes Andegavie -Archiepiscopis Episcopis Abbatibus Comitibus Justiciariis Baronibus -Vicecomitibus ministris et omnibus fidelibus suis Francis et Anglis -Anglie et Normannie salutem. Sciatis me fecisse Gaufridum de Magna Villa -Comitem de Essexa et dedisse et hereditarie concessisse sibi et -heredibus suis ad tenendum de me et heredibus meis Tertium Denarium de -placitis meis ejusdem Comitatus. Et volo et concedo et firmiter precipio -quod ipse Comes et heredes sui[733] post eum [habeant] et teneant -comitatum suum ita bene et in pace et libere et quiete et plene et -honorifice sicut aliquis Comes in Angliâ vel Normanniâ melius, liberius, -quietius, plenius, et honorificentius tenet Comitatum suum. Præterea -reddidi ei et concessi totam terram Gaufridi de MagnaVilla proavi sui, -et avi sui, et patris sui, et omnia tenementa illorum, tam in dominiis -quam in feodis militum, tam in Anglia quam in Normannia, que de me tenet -in capite, et de quocunque teneat et de cujuscunque feodo sint, et -nominatim Waledenam et Sabrichteswordam[734] et Walteham. Et vadium quod -Rex Henricus avus meus habuit super predicta tria maneria sua -imperpetuum ei clamavi quietum sibi et heredibus suis de me et de meis -heredibus. Quare volo (et firmiter precipio) quod ipse et heredes sui -habeant et teneant (de me et de meis heredibus) comitatum suum predictum -ita libere (et quiete et plene) sicut aliquis Comes in Anglia (vel -Normannia) melius, (liberius quietius et plenius comitatum suum) tenet. -Et habeant et teneant ipse et heredes sui omnia predicta tenementa -antecessorum suorum predictorum et nominatim predicta tria maneria ita -bene (et in pace et libere et quiete et honorifice et plene, in bosco et -plano et pratis et pascuis in Aquis et molendinis in viis et semitis in -forestis et warrennis in rivariis et piscariis infra Burgum et extra et -in omnibus locis et nominatim infra Civitatem London[ie], cum Soco et -Saca et Toll et Team et Infangtheof et cum omnibus Libertatibus et -liberis consuetudinibus et quietanciis suis) sicut Gaufridus de -MagnaVilla proavus suus et avus suus et pater suus unquam melius, -(liberius, quietius, et honorificentius et plenius) tenuerunt, tempore -Regis Willelmi et Regis Henrici avi mei. Testibus T[heobaldo] -Archiepiscopo Cantuar' (Rog[er]o Archiep[iscop]o Eborac' Ric[ardo] -Ep[iscop]o London', Rob[erto] Ep[iscop]o Lincoln', Nigello Ep[iscop]o -Eliensi, Tom[a] Canc[ellario], Rag[inaldo] Com[ite] Cornub', R[oberto] -Com[ite] Legrec', Rog[ero] Com[ite] de Clara, H[enrico] de Essex -Conesta[bulo], Ric[ardo] de Hum[ez] Conest[abulo], Ric[ardo] de Lucy, -War[ino] fil[io] Ger[oldi] Cam[er]ario, Man[assero] Bisset dap[ifero], -Rob[er]to de Dunest[anvilla] et Jos[celino] de Baillolio) Apud -Cantuariam. - -The first point to be considered is that of the date. It is obvious at -once from the names of the primate and the chancellor that the charter -must be previous to the king's departure from England in 1158. But the -only occasion within this limit on which the charter can have passed is -that of the king's visit to Canterbury on his way to Dover and the -Continent in January, 1156 (115⅚). On no other occasion within this -limit did he land at or depart from Dover. Now, it is quite certain that -the charter to Earl Aubrey (de Vere), which is tested "Apud Dover in -transitu Regis," passed at the time of this departure from Dover -(January 10, 1156).[735] We find, then, that as in 1142 the charters to -Earl Geoffrey and Earl Aubrey were part of one transaction and passed on -the same occasion, so now, the charters to Earl Geoffrey the second and -Earl Aubrey, his uncle, passed almost on the same day. The long list of -witnesses to the former, for which we are indebted to the Rawlinson MS., -enables us to compare it closely with those of the four other charters -which passed, according to Mr. Eyton, about the same time.[736] The -proportions of their witnesses found among the witnesses to this charter -are respectively: seven out of ten in the first; nine out of eighteen in -the second; the whole ten in the third; and seven out of fourteen in the -fourth. As the king had spent his Christmas at Westminster, we can thus -fix the date almost to a day, viz. _circ._ January 2, 1156. And this -harmonizes well enough with the evidence of the Pipe-Rolls, which show -that Earl Geoffrey was in receipt of the _tertius denarius_ in 1157, as -from Michaelmas, 1155. - -On looking at the terms of this instrument, we are struck at once by the -fact that it is a charter of actual creation. This is in perfect -accordance with the view advanced above, namely, that the charter -granted at Devizes to this Geoffrey, as his father's son, has no bearing -on the earldom of Essex, "and that only an absolutely new creation could -confer the earldom on Geoffrey, as he was not his father's heir." It is -thus that the existence of his brother Ernulf became a factor in the -problem of no small consequence.[737] - -Being thus an undoubted new creation, its terms should be examined most -carefully. It will then be found that the precedent they follow is not -the charter of the Empress (1141), but the original charter of the king -(1140). - - STEPHEN - (1140). - - Sciatis me fecisse Comitem de Gaufrido de Magnauillâ de Comitatu Essexe - hereditarie. - - MAUD - (1141). - - Sciatis omnes ... quod ego ... do et concedo Gaufrido de Magnavilla ... - ut sit Comes de Essexâ. - - HENRY - (1156). - - Sciatis me fecisse Gaufridum de Magnauillâ Comitem de Essexâ. - -The explanation is, of course, that the first and third are new -creations, while the second is virtually but a confirmation of the -previous creation by Stephen. So again, comparing this creation with -that of Hugh Bigod, the only instance in point— - - (1155.) - - Sciatis me fecisse Hugonem Bigot Comitem de Norfolca, scilicet de - tercio denario de Nordwic et de Norfolca. - - (1156.) - - Sciatis me fecisse Gaufridum de Mandavillâ Comitem de Essexa, et - dedisse et hereditarie concessisse sibi et heredibus suis.... Tertium - denarium de placitis meis ejusdem Comitatus. - -Here the absolute identity of the actual formula of creation accentuates -the difference between the clauses relating to the "Tertius Denarius." -It will therefore be desirable to compare the clauses as they stand in -the Mandeville and the Vere charters (January, 1156):— - - MANDEVILLE - - Sciatis me ... dedisse et hereditarie concessisse sibi et heredibus - suis ad tenendum de me et heredibus meis tertium denarium de placitis - meis ejusdem Comitatus. - - VERE - - Sciatis me dedisse et concessisse Comiti Alberico in feodo et - hereditate tertium denarium de placitis Oxenfordscyre ut sit inde Comes. - -It is said with truth in the Lords' Reports that "inde" is an ambiguous -word, as it might refer either to the county or to the "third penny" -itself. And, indeed, the above extract from the charter to Hugh Bigod -would lend support to the latter view. But the case of Earl Aubrey was, -we must remember, peculiar. As we saw in the charter of the empress -(1142), she recognized him as already a "comes" in virtue of his rank as -Count of Guisnes (p. 188). It is my belief that in the present charter -he is styled "comes" by Henry on precisely the same ground. For if Henry -had recognized him as Earl of Oxford in virtue of his mother's charter -(1142), he must also have recognized his right to "the third penny" of -the shire which was granted by that same charter.[738] But he clearly -did not recognize that right, for he here makes a fresh grant. Therefore -he did not recognize the validity of his mother's charter. Consequently, -he styled Aubrey "comes" in virtue only of the comital rank he enjoyed -as Count of Guisnes. And as he could not _make_ a "comes" of a man who -was a "comes" already (p. 187), he merely grants him "the third penny of -the pleas" of Oxfordshire, "that he may be earl of that county" ("ut sit -inde Comes"). Hence the anomalous form in which the charter is -drawn.[739] - -Different, again, yet no less instructive, is the case of the Earl of -Sussex. There the grant runs— - - "Sciatis me dedisse Willelmo Comiti Arundel castellum de Arundel cum - toto honore Arundel ... et tercium denarium de placitis de Suthsex unde - comes est." - -This charter has been looked upon as relating to the earldom itself, -whereas it is clearly nothing but a grant of the castle and honour of -Arundel and of the "Tertius Denarius" of Sussex, "of which county he is -earl."[740] When these two phrases are compared—"ut sit inde Comes" and -"unde Comes est"—their meaning is, surely, clear. William was _already_ -Earl of Sussex (_alias_ Arundel _alias_ Chichester), but his right to -the "Tertius Denarius" of the county was not recognized by the king. The -fact that this right required to be granted _nominatim_ confirms my view -that it was not conveyed by Stephen's charter to Geoffrey.[741] - -The distinction between the "dedi et concessi" of the "Tertius Denarius" -clause and the "reddidi" and "concessi" of those by which the king -confirms to Geoffrey his ancestral estates is one always to be noted. -The terms of what one may call this general confirmation are remarkably -comprehensive, going back as they do to the days of King William and of -the grantee's great-grandfather; and the profusion of legal verbiage in -which they are enwrapped is worthy of later times. The charter also -illustrates the adaptation in Latin of the old Anglo-Saxon _formulæ_, -themselves the relics of those quaint jingles which must bear witness to -oral transmission in an archaic state of society.[742] - -The release of the lien (upon three manors) which Henry I. had held is a -very curious feature. One of these manors, Sawbridgeworth in Herts., is -surveyed in Domesday at great length. Its value had then sunk from £60 -to £50; but early in the reign of Henry II., Earl Geoffrey gave it in -fee to Warine fitz Gerold, the chamberlain, "per (_sic_) LXXIIII -libratas terræ, singulas XX libratas pro servitio unius militis."[743] - -Under this charter Earl Geoffrey held the dignity till his death, at -which time we find him lord of more than a hundred and fifty knights' -fees. The earldom then (1166) passed to his younger brother William, and -did so, as far as we know, without a fresh creation. For the limitation, -it is important to observe, in this as in other early creations, is not -restricted to heirs _of the body_—a much later addition. As this point -is of considerable importance it may be as well here to compare the -essential words of inheritance in the three successive charters:— - - STEPHEN - (1140). - - Sciatis me fecisse Comitem de Gaufrido de Magnavillâ de Comitatu Essexe - _hereditarie_. Quare volo ... quod ipse _et heredes sui post eum - hereditario jure_ teneant de me et de heredibus meis ... sicut alii - Comites mei de terra meâ, etc. - - MAUD. - (1141). - - Sciatis ... quod ego do et concedo Gaufrido de Magnavillâ ... _et - heredibus suis post eum hereditabiliter_ ut sit Comes de Essexâ. - - HENRY II. - (1156). - - Sciatis me fecisse Gaufridum de Magna Villa Comitem de Essexa.... Et - volo ... quod ipse Comes _et heredes sui post eum_ habeant et teneant - Comitatum suum ... sicut aliquis Comes in Angliâ, etc. - -It is noteworthy that the earliest of these three—the earliest of all -our creation-charters—has the most intensely hereditary ring, a fact at -variance with the favourite doctrine that the hereditary principle was a -late innovation, and ousted but slowly the official position. It is -further to be observed that the term "Comitatus," of which the -denotation in Scottish charters has been so long and fiercely debated, -has here the abstract signification which it possesses in our own day, -namely, that of the dignity of an earl. - - * * * * * - -When we think of their father's stormy career, it is not a little -strange to find these two successive Earls of Essex high in favour with -the order-loving king, throughout whose reign, for more than thirty -years (1156-1189), we find them honoured and trusted in his councils, in -his courts, and in his host. Of Earl William Miss Norgate writes: "The -son was as loyal as his father was faithless; he seems, indeed, to have -been a close personal friend of the king, and to have well deserved his -friendship."[744] His fidelity was rewarded by the hand of the heiress -of the house of Aumâle, so that, already an earl in England, he thus -became, also, a count beyond the sea. - -Yet well might men believe that the awful curse of Heaven rested on this -great and able house. At the very moment when Earl William seemed to -have attained the pinnacle of power, when he had reached the point which -his father had reached some half a century before, then, as in his -father's case, the prize was snatched from his grasp. King Richard, -rightly prizing the earl's loyalty and worth, announced his intention, -at the Council of Pipewell (September, 1189), of leaving him, with the -Bishop of Durham as his assessor, in charge of the kingdom, as -Justiciar, during his own absence in the East. Such an office would have -made the earl the foremost layman in the realm. But before the time had -come for entering on his exalted duties, indeed within a few weeks of -his appointment, he was dead (November 14, 1189). - -Like his brother Geoffrey before him, the earl died childless; the vast -estates of the house of Mandeville passed to the descendants of his -aunt; to his earldom there was no heir.[745] Such was the end that -awaited the ambition of Geoffrey de Mandeville. The earldom for which he -had schemed and striven, the strongholds on which his power was based, -the broad lands which owned his sway—all were lost to his house. And as -if by the very irony of fate, Ernulf, his disinherited son, alone -continued the race, that there might not be wanting in his hapless heirs -an ever-standing monument to the greatness at once of the guilt and of -the fall of the man whose story I have told. - -[700] "Willelmi de Say et Galfridi de Mandeville, qui apud Borewelle -interfecti fuerunt" (_Chron. Ram._, App. p. 347). - -[701] "Isto itaque tali modo ad extrema deducto, nox quædam et horror -omnes regis adversarios implevit, quique ex dissensione a Galfrido -exorta regis annisum maxime infirmari putabant, nunc, eo interfecto, -liberiorem et ad se perturbandum, ut res se habebat, expediorem fore -æstimabant" (_Gesta_, p. 104). "Sicque Dei judicio patriæ vastatore -sublato, virtus bellatorum qui secum manum ad perniciem miserorum -firmaverunt plurimum labefacta est, cognoscentes Dominum Christum fideli -suo Regi de hostibus dare triumphum, et adversantes ei potenter elidere, -ad hoc expavit cor inimicorum illius" (_Historia Eliensis_, p. 628). - -[702] "Quod post dilationes, non sine difficultate, tandem invitus -fecit; locum enim illum et vicinas ejus partes multum dilexerat. -Prophani milites recedunt cum iniquo satellite" (_Chron. Ram._, p. 332). - -[703] "Eodem quoque anno, Ernulfus filius comitis, qui post mortem -patris ecclesiam incastellatam retinebat, captus est et in exilium -fugatus" (_Gervase_, i. 129. Cf. _Hen. Hunt._). - -[704] "Cujus princeps militum ab equo corruens effuso cerebro spiritum -exhalavit" (_ibid._). - -[705] "Magister autem peditum suorum, qui plus cæteris solitus erat -ecclesias concremare et frangere, dum mare transiret cum uxore sua, ut -multi perhibuerant, navis immobilis facta est. Quod monstrum nautis -stupentibus et sorte data rei causam inquirentibus, sors cecidit super -eum. Quod cum ille totis viribus, nec mirum, contradiceret, secundo et -tertio sors jacta in eum devenit: formidantibus igitur nautis positus -est in cymbam parvulam ipse et uxor ejus et eorum pecunia nequiter -adquisita, ut cum illis esset in perditione; quo facto, navis ut prius -maria libera sulcavit, cymba vero in voragine subsistens circumducta et -absorpta est" (_Hen. Hunt._). - -[706] There is abundant evidence that the two names are used -indifferently. - -[707] Burke's _Extinct Peerage_. So also Dr. Stubbs. - -[708] _Harl. Cart._, 84. C. 4. The charter being attested by Thomas the -Chancellor must be previous to August, 1158, as it passed at -Westminster. It has a rather unusual set of witnesses. - -[709] This charter may fairly be dated 1157-1158, on the following -grounds. It speaks of Warine fitz Gerold as the king's chamberlain, and -as living. But he died in the summer of 1158. It is, however, subsequent -to Henry's accession, because it was not till after that event that Fitz -Gerold was enfeoffed in Sawbridgeworth (_Liber Niger_), and also -subsequent to 1155, because Geoffrey occurs as earl. But as Maurice (de -Tiretei) was not sheriff, within these limits, till Michaelmas, 1157, we -obtain the date 1157-1158. - -[710] _Sloane Cart._, xxxii. 64. - -[711] _Liber Niger_ (ed. 1774), p. 326. The return of the Barony of -Helion (p. 242), in which an Ernulf de Mandeville appears as holding -half a knight's fee in Bumsted (Helion), is of later date. - -[712] _Rot. Pip._, 1 Ric. I. The "Ernald de Magneville" who was among -the Crusaders that reached Acre in June, 1191, may have been a younger -son of the disinherited Ernald, if the latter was then dead. An Ernulf -de Mandeville is found among the witnesses to a star of Abraham fitz -Muriel (1214), granting a house in Westcheap to Geoffrey "de -Mandeville," Earl of Essex and Gloucester. - -[713] _Rot. Pip._, 3 John. - -[714] _Testa_, p. 142 _b_. - -[715] See, for the exceptionally heavy alienations in this county (some -£440 a year), the Pipe-Roll of 2 Henry II., p. 57. - -[716] _Dugdale MS._, 15 (H) fol. 129. - -[717] "Feod[um] Rad[ulfi] de Nuers iiii. milites" (_Liber Niger_). - -[718] Compare them with the preceding charter of Earl Geoffrey. - -[719] _Dugdale MS._, _ut supra_. - -[720] William's succession to Otwel suggests that they were somehow -related to William fitz Otuel (p. 169). - -[721] With this charter of Earl William may be compared another (_Cart. -Cott._, x. 1), in which he confirms to Westminster Abbey the church of -Sawbridgeworth. The witnesses are "Willielmo de Ver, Asculfo Capellano, -Ricardo de Vercorol, Willelmo de Lisoris, David de Jarpouilla, Symone -fratre eius, Osberto filio Ricardi, Osberto de sancto Claro, Willelmo de -Norhala, Johanne de Rochella, Eustachio Camerario, Rogero et Simone -clericis Abbatis West'." The second and third witnesses are also found -attesting the earl's charter to the nuns of Greenfield (see p. 169). -Compare further "A charter of William, Earl of Essex" (_Eng. Hist. -Review_, April, 1891). "Asculfus (or Hasculfus) Capellanus" was the hero -of the adventure, on the earl's death, thus related by Dugdale: "A -chaplain of the earl's, called Hasculf, took out his best saddle-horse -in the night, and rode to Chicksand, where the Countess Rohese then -resided," etc., etc. - -[722] This is a good instance of the custom, so constantly met with in -Domesday, by which a house in a county town was attached to a manor. - -[723] _Dugdale MS._, _ut supra_. - -[724] _Dodsworth MS._, vii. fol. 299. - -[725] _Ibid._ - -[726] _Ibid._, xxx. fol. 104. - -[727] "Alano de Matem" is among them (cf. p. 89). - -[728] "Willelmus de Mandevill tenet in Kaingham feodum unius militis de -feod[o] Comitis Hereford[ie]" (_Testa_, pp. 102 _a_, 106 _a_). - -[729] _Lansdowne MS._, 865, fol. 118 _dors._; _Harl. MS._, 154, fol. 45. - -[730] _Lansdowne MS._, 229, fol. 123 _b_. This note is followed by one -of the charter by which the Empress confirmed Humfrey de Bohun in his -post of _Dapifer_, and of which the original is still extant among the -Duchy of Lancaster Royal Charters (Pipe-Roll Society: _Ancient -Charters_, p. 45). - -[731] See Appendix BB. - -[732] It was, I believe, duly entered in the lost volume of the Great -Coucher. - -[733] "Sui" omitted in Rawlinson MS. - -[734] "Dabrichteswordam" (Rawlinson). - -[735] _R. Diceto_, p. 531. - -[736] (1) To the church of St. Jean d'Angely (Canterbury); (2) to -Christchurch, Canterbury (Dover); (3) to St. Mary's Abbey, Leicester -(Dover); (4) to Earl Aubrey (Dover) (_Court and Itinerary of Henry II._, -pp. 15, 16). - -[737] It is true that the charter to Geoffrey Ridel (Appendix BB) proves -that Geoffrey de Mandeville the younger enjoyed, at the court of the -Empress, the title of Earl of Essex. But the same charter proves that -Henry did not hold himself bound by his mother's charters or deeds. - -[738] "Do et concedo quod sit Comes de ... et habeat inde tertium -denarium sicut comes debet habere." - -[739] It is one of the mysteries of the Pipe-Rolls that no such payment -to the earl is to be traced on them, though the grant is quite -unmistakable in its terms. See Appendix H. - -[740] The "unde" of this charter answers to the "inde" in the charters -to Earl Aubrey. - -[741] See Appendix H. - -[742] See, for instance, survivals of them in the charters of Henry I. -to Christchurch, Canterbury, and of Henry II. to Oxford. The former -runs, "on strande and on stream, on wudan and on feldan" (Campbell -Charter, xxix. 5); the latter, "by water and by stronde, by Gode (_sic_) -and by londe" (Hearne's _Liber Niger_, Appendix). - -The formula "cum omnibus ad hoc rebus rite pertinentibus, sive -_litorum_, sive camporum, agrorum, saltuumve" (Kemble, _Cod. Dipl._, No. -425; Earle, _Land Charters_, p. 186), suggested to Prof. Maitland -(_Select Pleas in Manorial Courts_) a connection with the "leet" through -the "litus" of early Teutonic law, but Mr. W. H. Stevenson, correcting -him, observed (_Academy_, June 29, 1889) that _litorum_ referred to the -seashore at Reculver (with which this grant deals). Both these -distinguished scholars are mistaken, for the words only render the -general formula: "by lande and by strande ('litorum'), by wode and by -felde." So for instance— - - "bi water and bi lande - mid inlade and mid utlade - wit inne burghe and wit outen - bi lande and by strande - bi wode and by felde" (_Ramsey Cart._, ii. 80, 81). - -Thus we have "in bosco et plano ... infra burgum et extra" (_supra_, p. -236). See also pp. 286, 314, 381. - -[743] _Liber Niger_ (1774), i. 239. - -[744] _Angevin Kings_, ii. 144. - -[745] The inheritance was in dispute for some time between his aunt's -younger son and the two daughters and co-heirs of her elder son -deceased. As the latter were eventually successful in their claim, there -was no one heir to whom the earldom could pass, as of right, under the -charter of 1156 (accepting it as representing a limitation to heirs -whatsoever). I have, however, elsewhere suggested (Pipe-Roll Society: -_Ancient Charters_, p. 99) that the _salvo_ to the elder of the two -daughters of her _antenatio_ may have been connected with a claim to the -dignity by her husband, in her right. - - - - -APPENDICES. - - - - - APPENDIX A. - STEPHEN'S TREATY WITH THE LONDONERS. - (See p. 3.) - - -There are few more suggestive passages in the chronicles of Stephen's -reign than that which describes, in the _Gesta_, his "pactio" with the -citizens of London. This, because of the striking resemblance between -the "pactio ... mutuo juramento" there described and the similar -practice in those foreign towns which enjoyed the rights of a "communa." -Thus at Bazas, in Aquitaine, "quum dominus rex venit apud Vasatum, omnes -cives Vasatenses jurant ei fidelitatem et obedientiam ... similiter et -rex et senescallus jurant dictis civibus Vasatensibus quod sit bonus -dominus eis et teneat consuetudines, et custodiat eos de omni injuria de -se et aliis pro posse suo." At Issigeac, in the Perigord, it was (as was -usual) the lord who had to swear first before the citizens would do so: -"en aital manieira que'l seinher reis ... cant requerra et queste -sagrament ...; deu jurar a lor premeirament qu'il los defendra de si et -d'autrui de tot domnage, et las bonas custumas que il ont et que il -auront lor gardet et lor amelhoret, à bona fe, ... et que las males lor -oste et lor tolha de tot. Et en après, li prohome deven li far lo -sagrament sobredich, que'l garderon son corps et sas gentz qui par lui -esseron et sas dreituras de tort et de forsa," etc., etc. At -Bourg-sur-Mer, in Gascony, the clause runs: "Dum dominus rex venit primo -in Vasconia, juratur ab eo, dum est sistens et coram senescallo suo (vel -a senescallo suo, dum ipse non est præsens, qui pro tempore veniet) quod -villam et jus custodiet et defendet et de se et de alio ab omni injuria, -et quod servabit foros et consuetudines suas. Nos juramus ei et -senescallo fidelitatem." So too at Bayonne, when the Great Seneschal of -Aquitaine, as representing the king, first arrived, he was called upon -to swear by all the saints that he would be a good and loyal lord; that -he would protect the citizens from all wrong and violence, either from -himself or from others; that he would preserve all their rights, -customs, and privileges, as granted them by the Kings of England and -Dukes of Guyenne, to the utmost of his power, so long as he held the -office, saving his fealty to the king.[746] When he had done so, the -mayor and jurats swore in their turn to him:— "By those saints, will we -be good, faithful, loyal, and obedient to you; your life and limbs we -will guard; good and loyal counsel will we give you to the best of our -power, and your secrets will we keep."[747] These examples, which could -be widely paralleled, not only in municipalities, but also in the rural -commonwealths of the Pyrenean valleys, illustrate the principle and -uniform character of this "mutuum juramentum." - -We are tempted then to ask whether it was not by some such transaction -as this that Stephen secured the adhesion of the citizens. We shall find -the Empress securing the city in 1141, after a formal "tractatus" at St. -Albans with its authorized representatives, and we know that the -Conqueror himself made some terms with the citizens before he entered -London. Comparing these facts with the reception at Winchester of -Stephen and the Empress in turn, it may fairly be questioned whether we -should accept the startling assertion in the _Gesta_ as literally -correct. It would seem at least highly probable that what the Londoners -really claimed in 1135 was not the right to elect a king of all England, -but to choose their own lord independently of the rest of the kingdom, -and to do so by a _separate negotiation_ between himself and them. They -were not, in any case, prepared to receive the king as their lord unless -he would first guarantee them the possession of all their liberties. -This semi-independent attitude, which was virtually that assumed by -Exeter when it attempted to treat with the Conqueror, was distinctly -foreign to the English polity so far as our knowledge goes. There are -faint hints, however, in Domesday that such towns as London, York, -Winchester, and Exeter may have possessed a greater independence than it -has hitherto been the custom to believe. - -[746] "Lo senescaut de Guiayne deu jurar en sa nabere vengude au mayre -juratz et cent partz et a laut poble et comunautat de Baione ... en -queste forme: Per aques sentz Job serey bon seinhor et leyau, de tort et -de force vos guoarderey de mi medichs et dautruy; a mon leyau poder -vostres fors vostres costumes et vostres priviledges sa en rer per los -reys Dangleterre et dux de Guiayne autreyatz vos sauberey, tant quoant -serey en lodit offici, sauban le fideutat de nostre seinhor lo Rey." - -[747] "Et losditz maire et juratz deben jurar en le maneyre seguent -disent assi: Per aques sentz nos vos seram bons, fideus, leyaus, et -hobediens; vite et menbres vos guarderam; bon cosseilh et leyau vos -deram, a nostre leyau poder; et segretz vos thieram." - - - - - APPENDIX B. - THE APPEAL TO ROME IN 1136. - (See p. 8.) - - -One of the most interesting and curious discoveries that I have made in -the course of my researches has been the true story of the appeal to -Rome as arbiter between Stephen and Maud. Considering the exceptional -importance of this episode, in many ways, it has received strangely -little attention, with the result that it has been imperfectly -understood and almost incredibly misdated. - -Mr. Freeman, working, in the _Norman Conquest_, from the _Historia -Pontificalis_,[748] writes of this episode as taking place on and in -consequence of Stephen's attempt to secure the coronation of Eustace in -1152.[749] Miss Norgate has gone into the matter far more fully than Mr. -Freeman, but at first assigned the debate described in the _Historia -Pontificalis_ to "1151."[750] - -In so doing, she was guided merely by the _Historia_ passage itself, -which she did not connect, as did Mr. Freeman, with the episode of the -proposed coronation in 1152. But on investigating the matter more -closely, she was clearly led to reject the date she had first given:— - - "From the way in which the trial is brought into the _Historia - Pontificalis_, it would at first sight seem to have taken place in - 1151. But the presence of Bishop Ulger of Angers and Roger of Chester, - both of whom died in 1149, and the account of the proceedings written - by Gilbert Foliot to Brian fitz Count, clearly prove the true date to - be 1148."[751] - -As to the time of the bishop's death, Roger died, not in 1149, but in -April, 1148, and at Antioch, so that the chronology is no less fatal to -Miss Norgate's date than to Mr. Freeman's own. But the additional -evidence she obtains from Gilbert Foliot's letter requires a special -examination. - -The sequence of events at which she arrives is this:— - -(1) Theobald goes, in defiance of Stephen, to the council convened at -Rheims by Eugenius III. for Mid-Lent Sunday, (March) 1148 (N.S.). - -(2) Stephen forfeits Theobald, and is threatened in consequence by the -Pope. - -(3) Geoffrey of Anjou, thereupon, challenges Stephen "to an -investigation of his claims before the papal court." Stephen, in reply, -calls on Geoffrey to surrender Normandy "before he would agree to any -further proceeding in the matter." - -(4) Geoffrey surrenders Normandy—but to his son Henry, and Stephen -"appears to have consented, as if in desperation, to the proposed trial -at Rome." - -(5) "The trial" takes place, as recorded in the _Historia Pontificalis_, -and is attended, _inter alios_, by Gilbert Foliot, Abbot of Gloucester, -who had obtained "the succession to the vacant see" of Hereford at the -Council of Rheims, and had added, in consequence, to his style the words -"et Herefordiensis ecclesiæ mandato Domini Papæ vicarius." - -(6) Gilbert Foliot writes the letter to Brian fitz Count, reviewing the -treatise which Brian had just composed in support of the claims of the -Empress, and alluding to the above "trial" at Rome which he (Gilbert) -had attended. - -(7) Gilbert Foliot is consecrated Bishop of Hereford by Theobald, at St. -Omer, in September (1148).[752] - -Of these events, the cession of Normandy by Geoffrey to his son Henry -belongs, as Mr. Howlett has pointed out, not to 1148, but to 1150 or -1151.[753] This, however, scarcely affects Miss Norgate's sequence of -events. It is when we turn to Foliot's letter that our suspicions begin -to be aroused. Although Dr. Giles has placed it at the end of those -letters which belong to the period of his rule as abbot (1139-1148), we -must be struck by the fact that if (as Miss Norgate holds) it was -written just before his consecration as Bishop of Hereford, the style -would have been "elect of Hereford," or, at least, "Vicar of the Diocese -(_ut supra_)," instead of "Abbot of Gloucester" only. Moreover, as Henry -was _ex hypothesi_ now Duke of Normandy, the "trial" would have been, -surely, of his own claims, not of those of his mother, who had virtually -retired in his favour. Lastly, we must see that the date assigned by her -to this "trial" at Rome (1148) is a mere hypothesis unsupported by any -direct evidence. - -But, indeed, we have only to read the letter and the _Historia -Pontificalis_ to see that they must have been perused with almost -incredible carelessness. For Gilbert Foliot distinctly mentions (_a_) -that he is writing in the time of Pope Celestine,[754] (_b_) that the -"trial" took place under Pope Innocent.[755] Now, Celestine died in -March, 1144, and his predecessor Innocent had died in September, 1143. -The letter, therefore, must have been written within these six months, -and the "trial" at Rome must have taken place before September 24, 1143. -This being clear, we naturally ask:—How came Innocent thus to hear the -case argued, when he had admittedly "confirmed" Stephen at the very -beginning of his reign? Having decided the question at the outset, how -could he ignore that decision, and begin, as it were, _de novo_? -Moreover, Stephen's champion is described by the _Historia_ writer as -Arnulf, Archdeacon of Séez, afterwards Bishop of Lisieux. Now, Miss -Norgate, with her usual care, fixes the date of his elevation to the see -as 1141.[756] A council, therefore, which he attended as archdeacon -must, on her own showing, be not later than this.[757] Lastly, now that -we know the council to be previous to 1141, do not the words of the -writer—"Magno illi conventui cum domino et patre nostro domino abbate -Cluniacensi interfui et ego Cluniacensium minimus"—suggest that it was, -further, previous to his becoming Abbot of Gloucester in 1139? Turning -again to the passage in the _Historia Pontificalis_ (41), we find that, -in the light of the above evidence, its meaning is beyond dispute. So, -indeed, it should be of itself, but for a most incomprehensible blunder -by which two passages of the _narrative_ are printed in Pertz as part of -the arguments advanced in the debate. The fact is that the writer of the -_Historia_, when he comes to the proposal to crown Eustace, is anxious -to show us how the matter stood by tracing the attitude of the Papacy to -Stephen since the beginning of his reign. He, therefore, takes us right -back to the year of the king's accession, and tells us how, and to what -extent, his claim came to be confirmed. - -This discovery at once explains Gilbert Foliot's expression. For, the -trial at Rome taking place, as I shall show, early in 1136, he attended -it, not as Abbot of Gloucester, but merely as "minimus Cluniacensium," -in attendance on his famous abbot, Peter the Venerable (1122-1158). It -may have been as prior ("claustral" prior?) of the abbey that he thus -attended him, for we know from himself that he had held that office. - -Everything now fits into place. We find that, following in her -grandfather's footsteps, Maud at once appealed to Rome against Stephen's -usurpation, charging him, precisely as William, in his day, had charged -Harold, (1) with defrauding her of her rightful inheritance, (2) with -breach of his oath. Stephen, when he had overcome the scruples of -William of Corbeuil, and had secured coronation at his hands, hastened -to take his next step by despatching to Rome three envoys to plead his -cause before the pope. These envoys were Roger, Bishop of Chester, -Arnulf, Archdeacon of Séez (the spokesman of the party), and "Lovel," a -clerk of Archbishop William.[758] This last was, of course, intended to -represent his master in the matter, and to justify his action in -crowning Stephen by explaining the grounds on which his scruples had -been overruled. The envoys were abundantly supplied with the requisite -motive power—or, shall we say, the oil for lubricating the wheels of the -Curia?—from the hoarded treasure of the dead king, which was now in his -successor's hands. The pope resolved that so important a cause required -no ordinary tribunal: he convoked for the purpose a great council, and -among those by whom it was attended was Peter, Abbot of Cluny, with -Gilbert Foliot in his train.[759] - -The name of Cluny leads me to break the thread for a moment for the -purpose of insisting on the important fact that the sympathies of the -house, under its then abbot, must have been with the Angevin cause. This -is certain from the documents printed by Sir George Duckett,[760] -especially from the Mandatory Epistle of this same Abbot Peter relating -to the Empress.[761] We have here, I think, the probable explanation of -the energy with which that cause was espoused by Gilbert Foliot. - -To return to the council. The case for the prosecution, as we might term -it, was opened by the Bishop of Angers, who charged Stephen both with -perjury, that is, with breaking the oath he had sworn to Henry I., and -with usurpation in seizing the throne to the detriment of the rightful -heir.[762] Stephen's supporters, with Arnulf at their head, met these -charges by a defence, the two reports of which are not in absolute -harmony. It is quite certain that to the charge of usurpation they -retorted that the Empress was the offspring of an unlawful alliance, and -had, therefore, suffered no wrong.[763] But how they disposed of the -oath is not so clear. According to Gilbert Foliot, whose account we may -safely follow, they advanced the subtle and ingenious plea that fidelity -had only been sworn to the Empress as heir ("sicut heredi") to the -throne, and since (they urged) she was not such heir (for the reason -given above), the oath was _ipso facto_ void, and the charge fell to the -ground.[764] The other writer asserts that the defence was based, first, -on the plea that the oath had been forcibly extorted, and, second, on -the cunning pretence that the king had reserved to himself the right of -appointing another heir, and had exercised that right on his deathbed, -to the extent of disinheriting the Empress and nominating Stephen in her -stead.[765] - -A careful study of the two versions has led me to believe that both -writers were, probably, right in their facts. Gilbert Foliot would be -the last man to invent an argument in favour of Stephen, nor would the -other writer have any inducement to do so, writing (as he did) long -after that king's death. Moreover, the pleas that (1) the oath had been -extorted, (2) Henry I. had released his barons from its obligation, are -precisely those which the author of the _Gesta_ and William of -Malmesbury[766] respectively mention as being advanced on Stephen's -behalf. Lastly, we have yet another plea advanced by Bishop Roger of -Salisbury, namely, that, so far as he was himself concerned, he looked -on the re-marriage of the Empress, without the consent of the Great -Council, as absolving him from his oath. Now, all this points to one -conclusion. The thorn in the side of Stephen and of his friends was, -clearly, this unlucky oath. Their various attempts to excuse its breach -betray their consciousness of the fact. More especially was this the -case before a spiritual court. Hence their ingenious endeavour, -described by Gilbert Foliot, to keep the oath in the background as the -lesser of the two points. Hence, too, their accumulated pleas. First, -they urge that the oath was void because the Empress was not the heir; -then, that it was void, because extorted; lastly, that it was void -because the dying king had released them from their obligation. Such an -argument as this speaks for itself. - -The only point on which the two witnesses do, at first sight, differ, is -the attitude taken by the Bishop of Angers with regard to the plea that -the Empress was not of legitimate birth. Did he contravene this plea? -The _Historia_ asserts that when Stephen's advocates had stated the case -for the defence, the bishop rose and traversed their pleadings, -rejecting them one by one. But Gilbert, writing to Brian fitz Count, -admits that the attack on the birth of the Empress (the only argument -which he discusses) had not been replied to.[767] Now, the version found -in the _Historia_, though composed much later, is a more detailed -account, and bears the stamp of truth. Yet Gilbert's admission to his -friend and ally betrays an uneasy consciousness that the charge had not -been disposed of. For he asks him to suggest an effectual reply, and -proceeds to suggest one himself.[768] He relies on St. Anselm's consent -to her parents' marriage. We have here possibly the clue we seek. For -the Bishop of Angers, in his speech, as given by the writer of the -_Historia_, had not alluded to St. Anselm's consent.[769] Perhaps he was -taken by surprise, and had not expected the plea. - -Stephen's advocates seem, from a hint of Gilbert Foliot,[770] to have -simply "stampeded the convention" (_conventus_), and the wrath of the -Angevin champion rose to a white heat.[771] The pope commanded that the -wrangling should cease, and announced that he would neither pass -sentence nor allow the trial to be adjourned. This was equivalent to a -verdict that the king was not guilty, and was duly followed by a letter -to Stephen confirming him in his possession of the kingdom and the -duchy.[772] - -Seeing that he had lost his case, the aged Bishop of Angers relieved his -feelings by a bitter jest at the cost of the heir of St. Peter.[773] - -But we are more immediately concerned with that letter by which the pope -(the writer tells us) confirmed Stephen in possession. For this -connecting link is no other than the letter which meets us in the pages -of Richard of Hexham.[774] - -Its relevant portion runs thus:— - - "Nos cognoscentes vota tantorum virorum in personam tuam, præeunte - divina gratia, convenisse, pro spe etiam certa,[775] et [quia] beato - Petro in ipsa consecrationis tuæ die obedientiam et reverentiam - promisisse, et quia de præfati regis prosapia prope posito gradu - originem traxisse dinosceris, quod de te factum est gratum habentes, te - in specialem beati Petri et sanctæ Romanæ ecclesie filium affectione - paterna recipimus, et in eadem honoris et familiaritatis prærogativa, - qua predecessor tuus egregiæ recordationis Henricus a nobis - coronabatur, te propensius volumus retinere." - -The chronicler, observing that Stephen was "his et aliis modis in regno -Angliæ confirmatus," passes straight from this letter to the King's -Oxford charter, in which he describes himself as "ab Innocentio sanctæ -Romanæ sedis pontifice confirmatus." Of this "confirmation," as we find -it styled by the author of the _Historia_, by Richard of Hexham, by John -of Hexham, and lastly, by Stephen himself, I speak more fully in the -text. For the present the point to be grasped is that (1) the -"conventus" at Rome was previous to (2) this letter of the pope, which -was previous itself to (3) Stephen's charter, which is assigned to the -spring (after Easter) of 1136. Thus we arrive at the fact that the -council and debate at Rome belong to the early months of 1136. - -To complete while we are about it the explanation of the _Historia_ -narrative, we will now take the second passage which has been -erroneously printed in Pertz— - - "Postea, cum prefatus Guido cardinalis promoveretur in papam - Celestinum, favore imperatricis scripsit domno Theobaldo Cantuarensi - archiepiscopo inhibens ne qua fieret innovatio in regno Anglie circa - coronam, quia res erat litigiosa cujus translatio jure reprobata est. - Successores eius papæ Lucius et Eugenius eandem prohibitionem - innovaverunt." - -This passage is absurdly given as part of Bishop Ulger's sneer. - -The above cardinal is Guy, cardinal priest of St. Mark, referred to in -the previous misplaced passage as opposing the confirmation of Stephen. -Observe here that three writers allude quite independently to his -sympathy with the Angevin cause. These are—(1) the writer (_ut supra_) -of the _Historia Pontificalis_; (2) Gilbert Foliot, who speaks of him, -when pope, as "favente parti huic domino papa Celestino," and (3) John -of Hexham, who describes him as "Alumpnus Andegavensium." A coincidence -of testimony, so striking as this, strengthens the authority of all -three, including that of the writer of the _Historia Pontificalis_. - -The step taken by Pope Celestine was based on the alleged doubt in which -his predecessor had left the question. It was, he held, still "res -litigiosa," and, therefore, without reversing the action of Innocent in -the matter, he felt free to forbid any further step in advance. His -instructions to that effect, to the primate, were duly renewed by his -successors, and covered, when the time arrived, the case of the -coronation of Eustace as being an "innovatio in regno Anglie circa -coronam." Stephen had, indeed, been confirmed as king, and this could -not be undone. But that confirmation did not extend to the son of the -"perjured" king.[776] - -With the character and meaning of the "confirmation" obtained by Stephen -from the pope, I have dealt in the body of this work. There are, -however, a few minor points which had better be disposed of here. Of -these the first is Miss Norgate's contention that when, in 1148, Stephen -met Geoffrey's challenge to submit his claims to Rome, "by a counter -challenge calling upon Geoffrey to give up his equally ill-gotten duchy -before he would agree to any further proceeding in the matter," - - "Geoffrey took him at his word, but in a way which he was far from - desiring. He did give up the duchy of Normandy, by making it over to - his own son, Henry Fitz-Empress."[777] - -A reference to the passage in the _Historia_[778] on which Miss Norgate -relies, will show at once that Geoffrey, on receiving the -counter-challenge, abandoned all thought of carrying the matter -further.[779] It also incidentally proves that Geoffrey had refused -admission to his dominions to either pope or legate. This is a fact of -interest. - -This was not the only occasion on which Stephen's "recognition" by the -pope stood him in good stead. At the crisis of 1141, the sensitive -conscience of Archbishop Theobald had prevented his transferring his -allegiance to the Empress, badly though Stephen had treated him, till he -received permission from the Lord's anointed to follow in the footsteps -of his brother prelates.[780] - -The loyal primate explained the position when Gilbert Foliot had enraged -the Angevins by doing homage to Stephen for the see of Hereford. Wholly -Angevin though they were in their sympathies, the prelates maintained -that they were bound as Churchmen to follow the pope's ruling, and that -the Papacy had "received" Stephen as king.[781] - -Another point deserving notice is the choice of Arnulf, afterwards the -well-known Bishop of Lisieux, as Stephen's chief envoy in 1136. For Miss -Norgate, oddly enough, misses this point in her sketch of this -distinguished man's career.[782] She has nothing to say of his doings -between his _Tractatus de Schismate_, "about 1130," and his appointment -to the see of Lisieux in 1141, from which date "for the next forty years -there was hardly a diplomatic transaction of any kind, ecclesiastical or -secular, in England or in Gaul, in which he was not at some moment or in -some way or other concerned."[783] This, therefore, constitutes a -welcome addition to his career, and, moreover, gives us the reason of -Geoffrey's aversion to him, when duke, and of the "heavy price" with -which his favour had to be bought by Arnulf.[784] - -The last point concerns the "most interesting and valuable"[785] letter -from Gilbert Foliot to Brian fitz Count. A careful perusal of this -composition has led me to believe, from internal evidence, that it -refers not (as Miss Norgate puts it) to a "book" by Brian fitz Count, or -"a defence of his Lady's rights in the shape of a little treatise,"[786] -but to a justification of his own conduct in reply to hostile criticism. -And I venture to think that so far from this composition being -"unhappily lost,"[787] it may be, and probably is, no other than that -lengthy epistle from Brian to the Bishop of Winchester, of which a copy -was entered in Richard de Bury's _Liber Epistolaris_. And there, -happily, it is still preserved.[788] This can only be decided when the -contents of that epistle are made accessible to the public, as they -should have been before now. - - * * * * * - -To resume. I have now established these facts. The "trial" at Rome took -place, not, as Mr. Freeman assumes, in 1152, nor, as Miss Norgate -argues, in 1148, but early in 1136. The letter of Gilbert Foliot, in -which he refers to it, was written, not in 1148, but late in 1143 or -early in 1144. The whole of Miss Norgate's sequence of events (i. 369, -370) breaks down entirely. The great debate before the pope at Rome was -not the result of Stephen's attempt to get Eustace crowned, nor of -Geoffrey's challenge to Stephen by the mouth of Bishop Miles, but of the -charge brought against Stephen at the very outset of his reign. The true -story of this debate and of Stephen's "confirmation," by the pope, as -king is here set forth for the first time, and throws on the whole chain -of events a light entirely new. - -[748] Pertz's _Monumenta Historica_, vol. xx. - -[749] "The application to Rome and the debate which followed it there -are to be found in the _Historia Pontificalis_, 41 (Pertz, xx. 543). -Bishop (_sic_) Henry 'promisit se daturum operam et diligentiam ut -apostolicus Eustachium filium regis coronaret. Quod utique fieri non -licebat, nisi Romani pontificis veniâ impetratâ.' I have already (see -above, p. 251) had to refer to some of the points urged in this debate" -(_Norm. Conq._, v. 325, note). On turning to "p. 251," we similarly find -the debate spoken of as belonging to "later years," and at p. 354 also, -while at p. 857 we read: "At a later time, in the argument before Pope -Innocent (_sic_), when Stephen is trying to get the pontiff's consent to -the coronation of his son Eustace (p. 325)," etc., etc. How an argument -could be held before Innocent, many years after his death, Mr. Freeman -does not explain. - -[750] _England under the Angevin Kings_, i. 278, _note_. - -[751] _England under the Angevin Kings_, i. 370, _note_. - -[752] _Ibid._, i. 370, 371, 495, 496. - -[753] _Academy_, November 12, 1887. - -[754] "Sed jam nunc Deo propitio et favente parti huic domino papa -Celestino." - -[755] "Audisti dominum papam Innocentium convocasse ecclesiam et Romæ -conventum celebrem habuisse." - -[756] _England under the Angevin Kings_, i. 500. - -[757] Perhaps she did not recognize his name (see below). - -[758] "Ex adverso steterunt a rege missi Rogerus Cestrensis episcopus -Lupellus clericus Guillelmi bone memorie Cantuarensis archiepiscopi, et -qui eis in causa patrocinabatur Ernulfus archidiaconus Sagiensis" -(_Hist. Pontif._, 41). - -[759] "Audisti dominum papam Innocentium convocasse ecclesiam et Romæ -conventum celebrem habuisse. Magno illi conventui cum domino et patre -nostro domino abbato Cluniacensi interfui et ego Cluniacensium minimus. -Ibi causa hæc in medium deducta est, et aliquandiu ventilata" (Foliot's -letter, lxxix., ed. Giles, i. 100). - -[760] _Charters and Records of the Ancient Abbey of Cluni_ (1888). - -[761] "Felicis memoriæ rex Anglorum et Dux Normannorum, Henricus, -Willelmi primo ducis dein regis filius, speciali eam [Cluniacensem -ecclesiam] amore coluit et veneratus est. Donis autem multiplicibus et -magnis omnes jam dictos exsuperans, etiam majorem ecclesiam ... miro et -singulari opere inter universas pene tocius orbis ecclesias consummavit. -Ea de causa, specialis apud universos Cluniacensis ordinis fratres ejus -memoria habetur et in perpetuum per Dei gratiam habebitur. Cui in -paterna hereditate succedens Matildis, ejus filia, Henrici magni -Romanorum imperatoris conjux ... paternæ imaginis et prudentiæ formam -velut sigillo impressam representavit, et præter alia digna relatu, -Cluniacensem ecclesiam more patris sincere dilexit" (_ibid._, ii. 104). - -[762] "Stabat ab Imperatrice dominus Andegavensis episcopus, qui ... duo -inducebat precipue, jus scilicet hereditarium et factum imperatrici -juramentum" (Foliot's letter, _ut supra_). "Querimoniam imperatricis ad -papam Innocentium Ulgerius Andegavorum venerandus antistes detulit, -arguens regem periurii et illicité presumptionis regni" (_Hist. -Pontif._, 41). - -[763] "Hic [Ernulfus] adversus episcopum allegavit publice, quod -imperatrix patris erat indigna successione, eo quod de incestis nupciis -procreata et filia fuerat monialis, quam Rex Henricus de monasterio -Romeseiensi extraxerat eique velum abstulerat" (_Hist. Pontif._). -"Imperatricem, de qua loquitur, non de legitimo matrimonio ortam -denuntiamus. Deviavit a legitimo tramite Henricus rex, et quam non -licebat sibi junxit matrimonio, unde istius sunt natalitia propagata: -quare illam patri in heredem non debere succedere et sacra denuntiant" -(Foliot's letter). - -[764] "Sublato enim jure principali, necessario tollitur et secundarium. -In hac igitur causâ principale est, quod dominus Andegavensis de -hereditate inducit et ab hoc totum illud dependet, quod de juramento -subjungitur. Imperatrici namque sicut heredi juramentum factum fuisse -pronunciat. Totum igitur quod de juramento inducitur, exinaniri necesse -est, si de ipso hereditario jure non constiterit" (_ibid._). - -[765] "Juramentum confessus est [Ernulfus], sed adjecit violentur -extortum, et sub conditione scilicet imperatrici successionem patris se -pro viribus servaturum, nisi patrem voluntatem mutare contingeret et -heredem alium instituere; poterat enim esse ut ei de uxore filius -nasceretur. Postremo subjecit quod rex Henricus mutaverat voluntatem et -in extremis agens filium sororis suæ Stephanum designavit heredem" -(_Hist. Pontif._). - -[766] So also Gervase of Canterbury. - -[767] "Hoc in communi audientiâ multum vociferatione declamatum est, et -nihil omnino ab altera parte responsum." - -[768] "Rogo, mihi in parte ista respondeas. Interim dicam ipse quod -sentio. Majores natu, personas religiosas et sanctas, sæpius de re ista -conveni. Audio illius matrimonii copulam sancto Anselmo archiepiscopo -ministrante celebratam.... Manus autem sibi præcidi permississet -[Anselmus], quam eas ad opus illicitum extendisset." - -[769] His reply was: "Ipsa [Romana ecclesia] enim confirmavit -matrimonium quod accusas, filiamque ex eo susceptam domnus Pascalis -Romanus pontifex inunxit in imperatricem. Quod utique non fecisset de -filia monialis. Nec eum veritas latere poterat, quia non fuit obscurum -matrimonium aut contractum in tenebris." - -[770] "Multorum vociferatione declamatum est." - -[771] "In Archidiaconum excandescens" (_Hist. Pontif._). - -[772] "Non tulit ulterius contentiones eorum domnus Innocentius nec -sententiam ferre voluit aut causam in aliud differre tempus, sed contra -consilium quorundam cardinalium et maxime Guidonis presbiteri sancti -Marci, receptis muneribus regis Stephani, ei familiaribus litteris -regnum Angliæ confirmavit et ducatum Normanniæ." This is the passage so -inexplicably printed in Pertz as part of the bishop's speech, which -immediately precedes it. - -[773] "Ulgerius vero cum cognitioni cause supersederi videret, verbo -comico utebatur dicens: 'De causa sua querentibus intus despondebitur;' -et adjiciebat: 'Petrus enim peregre profectus est, nummulariis relicta -domo'" (_Hist. Pontif._). - -[774] Ed. Howlett, p. 147. - -[775] Compare the description of Henry of Winchester, shortly before -this, as "spe scilicet captus amplissima" that Stephen would do his duty -by the Church. - -[776] "Ne filium regis, qui contra jusjurandum regnum obtinuisse -videbatur in regem sublimaret" (_Gervase_). - -[777] Vol. i. p. 369. - -[778] Pertz, xx. p. 531. Bishop Miles is sent to England, "ad petitionem -Gaufridi comitis Andegavorum, ut regem super perjurio et regni -occupatione conveniret et ducatu Normanniæ, quem invaserat." - -[779] Mr. Howlett has duly pointed out that Geoffrey did not, as Miss -Norgate imagines, hand over Normandy to his son in consequence of this -challenge; but I would point out further that Stephen demanded not -merely the surrender of Normandy, but also that of the _English_ -districts then under Angevin sway ("Hoc retulit responsum: quod rex -_utrumque_ honorem et jure suo _et ecclesie Romane auctoritate_ adeptus -erat, _nec refugerat stare judicio apostolicæ sedis_, quando eum comes -violenter ducatu spoliavit et parte regni. _Quibus_ non restitutis non -debebat subire judicium" (p. 531)). - -[780] "Confiscata sunt (1148) bona ejus et secundo proscriptus pro -obediencia Romane ecclesie. Nam et alia vice propter obedienciam sedis -Apostolicæ proscriptus fuerat, quando, urgente mandato domini Henrici -Wintoniensis episcopi tunc legatione fungentis in Anglia post alios -episcopos omnes receperat imperatricem ... licet inimicissimos habuerit -regem et consiliarios suos" (_Hist. Pontif._). - -[781] [Stephen] "quem tota Anglicana ecclesia sequebatur ex -constitutione ecclesie Romane. Licet proceres divisi diversos principes -sequerentur, unum tamen habebat ecclesia ... quod episcopo non licuerat -ecclesiam scindere ei subtrahendo fidelitatem quem ecclesia Romana -recipiebat ut principem" (_Ibid._, pp. 532, 533). - -[782] _England under the Angevin Kings_, i. 500-502. - -[783] _Ibid._ - -[784] The stinging taunts of the Bishop of Angers on Arnulf's humble -origin, as given in the _Hist. Pontif._, are of great importance in -their bearing on Henry I.'s policy of raising men to power "from the -dust." They should be compared with the well-known sneer of Ordericus -(see p. 111). - -[785] _England under the Angevin Kings_, i. p. 496, _note_. - -[786] _Ibid._, p. 369. - -[787] _Ibid._, p. 496, _note_. - -[788] I called attention to this letter in a communication to the -_Athenæum_, pointing out that in Mr. Horwood's report on the _Liber -Epistolaris_ in an Historical MSS. Commission Report on Lord Harlech's -MSS. (1874), mention was made, among its contents, of a letter from the -Bishop of Winchester to Brian fitz Count, and of Brian's reply, which is -merely described as "a long reply to the above" (it extends over three -folios), and of which a _précis_ should certainly have been given. - - - - - APPENDIX C. - THE EASTER COURT OF 1136. - (See p. 19.) - - -I here give in parallel columns the witnesses to (I.) Stephen's -grant to Winchester; (II.) his grant of the bishopric of Bath; -(III.) his great charter of liberties subsequently issued at -Oxford. - - I. - - King Stephen. - Queen Matilda. - William, Earl Warenne. - Ranulf, Earl of Chester. - Henry, son of the King of Scotland [Scotie]. - Roger, Earl of Warwick. - Waleran, Count of Meulan. - William de Albemarla. - Simon de Silvanecta. - Aubrey de Vere, Camerarius. - William de Albini, Pincerna. - Robert de Ver, Conestabularius. - Miles de Gloucester, Conestabularius. - Brian fitz Count, Conestabularius. - Robert fitz Richard, Dapifer. - Robert Malet, Dapifer. - [William] Martel, Dapifer. - Simon de Beauchamp, Dapifer. - William, Archbishop of Canterbury. - Thurstan, Archbishop of York. - Hugh, Archbishop of Rouen. - Roger, Bishop of Salisbury. - Nigel, Bishop of Ely. - Seffrid, Bishop of Chichester. - Ebrard, Bishop of Norwich. - Simon, Bishop of Worcester. - Robert, Bishop of Bath. - Bernard, Bishop of St. David's. - Robert, Bishop of Hereford. - John, Bishop of Rochester. - Audoen, Bishop of Evreux. - John, Bishop of Séez. - Richard, Bishop of Avranches. - "Algarus," Bishop of Coutances. - Roger the Chancellor. - Roger de Fecamp, Capellanus. - Henry, nephew of King Stephen. - Reginald, son of King Henry. - Robert de Ferrers. } - William Peverel de Nottingham.} - Ilbert de Lacy. } - Walter Espec. } - Payn fitz John. } - Eustace fitz John. } - Walter de Salisbury. } - Robert Arundel. } - Geoffrey de Mandeville. } - Hamo de St. Clare. } - Roger de Valoines. } Barones. - Henry de Port. } - Walter fitz Richard. } - Walter de Gant. } - Walter de Bolebec. } - Walchelin Maminot. } - William de Percy.[789] } - - II. - - William, Archbishop of Canterbury. - Thurstan, Archbishop of York. - Hugh, Archbishop of Rouen. - Henry, Bishop of Winchester. - Roger, Bishop of Salisbury. - Alexander, Bishop of Lincoln. - Nigel, Bishop of Ely. - Seffrid, Bishop of Chichester. - Robert, Bishop of Hereford. - John, Bishop of Rochester. - Bernard, Bishop of St. David's. - Simon, Bishop of Worcester. - Ebrard, Bishop of Norwich. - Audoen, Bishop of Evreux. - John, Bishop of Séez. - "Algarus," Bishop of Coutances. - Richard, Bishop of Avranches. - Athelwulf, Bishop of Carlisle. - Roger the Chancellor. - Henry, the nephew of the king. - Henry, son of the King of Scotland. - William, Earl Warenne. - Waleran, Count of Meulan. - Roger, Earl of Warwick. - Robert de Ver, Conestabularius. - Miles de Gloucester, Conestabularius. - Aubrey de Vere, Camerarius. - William de Pont de l'arche, Camerarius. - Robert fitz Richard, Camerarius. - William de Albini, Pincerna. - Robert de Ferrars. - Robert Arundel. - Geoffrey de Mandeville. - Ilbert de Lacy. - William Peverel. - Geoffrey Talbot. - - III. - - William, Archbishop of Canterbury. - Hugh, Archbishop of Rouen. - Henry, Bishop of Winchester. - Roger, Bishop of Salisbury. - Alexander, Bishop of Lincoln. - Nigel, Bishop of Ely. - Ebrard, Bishop of Norwich. - Simon, Bishop of Worcester. - Bernard, Bishop of St. David's. - Audoen, Bishop of Evreux. - Richard, Bishop of Avranches. - Robert, Bishop of Hereford. - John, Bishop of Rochester. - Athelwulf, Bishop of Carlisle. - Roger the Chancellor. - Henry, the nephew of the king. - Robert, Earl of Gloucester. - William, Earl Warenne. - Ranulf, Earl of Chester. - Roger, Earl of Warwick. - Robert de Ver. } - Miles de Gloucester. } Conestabuli. - Brian fitz Count. } - Robert de Oilli. } - William Martel. } - Hugh Bigot. } Dapiferi. - Humphrey de Bohun. } - Simon de Beauchamp. } - William de Albini. } Pincernæ - Eudo Martel. } - Robert de Ferrers. - William Peverel de Nottingham. - Simon de Saintliz. - William de Albamarla. - Payn fitz John. - Hamo de St. Clare. - Ilbert de Lacy.[790] - -There were thus assembled at the Easter court of 1136 the two primates -of England and twelve of their suffragans, and the primate of Normandy, -with four of his—nineteen prelates in all. Next to these, in order of -precedence, were Henry, the king's nephew,[791] Henry, son of the King -of Scots, and Reginald, afterwards Earl of Cornwall, whose presence, as -a son of the late king, was of importance in the absence of the Earl of -Gloucester. The names in all three lists repay careful study. Among them -we find all those of the leading supporters of the Empress in the -future, while in Robert de Ferrers, William de Aumale, and Geoffrey de -Mandeville, we recognize three of those who were to receive earldoms -from Stephen. The style and place of William de Aumale deserves special -notice, because they prove that he did not, as is supposed, enjoy -comital rank at the time.[792] This fact, further on, will have an -important bearing. So, too, Simon de St. Liz ("de Silva Necta") was -clearly not an earl at the time of these charters. It is believed indeed -that he was Earl of Northampton, while Henry of Scotland was Earl of -Huntingdon. But it is clear that when Henry received from Stephen, as he -had just done, Waltheof's earldom, that grant must have comprised -Northampton as well as Huntingdon; and I have seen other evidence -pointing to the same conclusion. In after years, when Simon was as loyal -as the Scotch court was hostile to Stephen, he may well have received -the earldom of Northampton from the king he served so well. But for the -present, Henry of Scotland was in high favour with Stephen, so high that -the jealousy of the Earl of Chester, stirred by the alienation of -Carlisle, blazed forth at this very court.[793] Their mention of -Ranulf's presence, as of Henry's, confirms the authenticity of our -charters. - -The document with which they should be compared is the charter granted -to the church of Salisbury by Henry I. at his Northampton council in -1131 (September 8).[794] Its witnesses are the Archbishops of Canterbury -and York, ten bishops (Gilbert of London, Henry of Winchester, Alexander -of Lincoln, John of Rochester, Seffrid of Chichester, William of Exeter, -Robert of Hereford, Symon of Worcester, Roger of "Chester," and Ebrard -of Norwich), seven abbots (Anscher of Reading, Ingulf of Abingdon, -Walter of Gloucester, Geoffrey of St. Albans, Herbert of Westminster, -Warner of Battle, and Hugh of St. Augustine's), Geoffrey the -chancellor,[795] with Robert "de Sigillo,"[796] and Nigel the Bishop of -Salisbury's nephew,[797] five earls (Robert of Gloucester, William of -Warenne, Randulf of Chester, Robert of Leicester, and Roger of Warwick), -nineteen barons (Brian fitz Count, Miles de Gloucester, Hugh Bigod, -Humfrey de Bohun, Payne fitz John, Geoffrey de Clinton, William de Pont -de l'Arche, Richard Basset, Aubrey de Ver, Richard fitz Gilbert, Roger -fitz Richard, Walter fitz Richard, Walter de Gant, Robert de Ferrers, -William Peverel of Nottingham, Baldwin de Redvers, Walter de Salisbury, -William de Moion, Robert de Arundel), forty-six in all. In many ways a -very noteworthy list, and not least in its likeness to the future House -of Lords, with its strong clerical element. It is impossible to comment -on all the magnates here assembled at Henry's court, many of whom we -meet with again, but attention may be called to the significant fact -that nine of the earldoms created under Stephen were bestowed on houses -represented among the nineteen barons named above.[798] - -[789] This list is here printed as it is given by Hearne, but the order -of the names, of course, is wholly erroneous, the prelates being placed -low down instead of at the head. The right order would be prelates, -chancellor (and chaplain), the "royalties," the earls, the household -officers, and the "barones." But it would not be safe to rearrange the -names in the absence of the original charter, in which they probably -stood in parallel columns. - -[790] This list is taken from that in Stubbs' _Select Charters_, which -is derived, through the _Statutes of the Realm_, from a copy at Exeter -Cathedral. There is another version in Richard of Hexham (ed. Howlett, -pp. 149, 150), in which Payn fitz John is omitted and _Hugh_ de St. -Clare entered in error for _Hamon_. But the reading "Silvanecta" (for -"Saint liz") is confirmed by Charter No. I., as well as by a charter in -_Cott. MSS._, Nero, C. iii. (fol. 177). Both versions of this list are -questionable as to the second "pincerna," the statutes reading "Eudone -Mart'," while Richard gives "Martel de Alb'." - -[791] Henry de Soilli (or Sully), son of Stephen's brother William. I -find him attesting a charter of Stephen abroad, subsequently, as "H. de -Soilli, nepote regis." He was a monk, and failing to obtain the -bishopric of Salisbury or the archbishopric of York, in 1140, was -consoled with the Abbey of Fécamp. - -[792] For if he had even been then a count over sea, he would have -ranked, like the Count of Meulan, among English earls. - -[793] "Fuit quoque Henricus filius regis Scottiæ ad curiam Stephani -regis Angliæ in proxima Pascha, quam apud Londoniam festive tenuit, cum -maximo honore susceptus, atque ad mensam ad dexteram ipsius regis sedit. -Unde et Willelmus archiepiscopus Cantuarensis se a rege subtraxit, et -quidam proceres Angliæ erga regem indignati coram ipso Henrico -calumpnias intulerant" (_Ric. Hexham_). Among these "proceres" was the -Earl of Chester. - -[794] _Sarum Charters and Documents_ (Rolls Series), pp. 6, 7. - -[795] Afterwards Bishop of Durham. - -[796] Afterwards Bishop of London. - -[797] Afterwards the celebrated Bishop of Ely. - -[798] See Appendix D: "The 'Fiscal' Earls." - - - - - APPENDIX D. - THE "FISCAL" EARLS. - (See p. 53.) - - -"Stephen's earldoms are a matter of great constitutional importance." -Such are the words of the supreme authority on the constitutional -history of the time. I propose, therefore, to deal with this subject in -detail and at some length, and to test the statements of the -chroniclers—too readily, as I think, accepted—by the actual facts of the -case, so far as they can now be recovered. - -The two main propositions advanced by our historians on this subject -are: (1) that Stephen created many new earls, who were deposed by -Henry II. on his accession;[799] (2) that these new earls, having no -means of their own, had to be provided for "by pensions on the -Exchequer."[800] That these propositions are fairly warranted by the -statements of one or two chroniclers may be at once frankly conceded; -that they are true in fact, we shall now find, may be denied without -hesitation. - -Let us first examine Dr. Stubbs's view as set forth in his own words:— - - "Not satisfied with putting this weapon into the hands of his enemies, - he provoked their pride and jealousy by conferring the title of earl - upon some of those whom he trusted most implicitly, irrespective of the - means which they might have of supporting their new dignity. Their - poverty was relieved by pensions drawn from the Exchequer.... Stephen, - almost before the struggle for the crown had begun, attempted to - strengthen his party by a creation of new earls. To these the third - penny of the county was given, and their connection with the district - from which the title was taken was generally confined to this - comparatively small endowment, the rest of their provision being - furnished by pensions on the Exchequer" (_Const. Hist._, i. 324, 362). - - "Stephen also would have a court of great earls, but in trying to make - himself friends he raised up persistent enemies. He raised new men to - new earldoms, but as he had no spare domains to bestow, he endowed them - with pensions charged on the Exchequer ... the new and unsubstantial - earldoms provoked the real earls to further hostility; and the newly - created lords demanded of the king new privileges as the reward and - security for their continued services" (_Early Plants._, p. 19).[801] - -Now, these "pensions on the Exchequer" must, I fear, be dismissed at -once as having an existence only in a misapprehension of the writer. -Indeed, if the Exchequer machinery had broken down, as he holds, it is -difficult to see of what value these pensions would be. But in any case, -it is absolutely certain that such grants as were made were alienations -of lands and rents, and not "pensions" at all.[802] The passages bearing -on these grants are as follows. Robert de Torigny (_alias_ "De Monte") -states that Stephen "omnia pene ad fiscum pertinentia minus caute -distribuerat," and that Henry, on his accession, "cœpit revocare -in jus proprium urbes, castella, villas, quæ ad coronam regni -pertinebant."[803] William of Newburgh writes:— - - "Considerans autem Rex [Henricus] quod regii redditus breves essent, - qui avito tempore uberes fuerant, eo quod regia dominica per mollitiem - regis Stephani ad alia multosque dominos majori ex parte migrassent, - præcepit ea cum omni integritate a quibuscunque detentioribus - resignari, et in jus statumque pristinum revocari." - -In the vigorous words of William of Malmesbury:— - - "Multi siquidem ... a rege, hi prædia, hi castella, postremo quæcumque - semel collibuisset, petere non verebantur; ... Denique multos etiam - comites, qui ante non fuerant, instituit, applicitis possessionibus et - redditibus quæ proprio jure regi competebant." - -It is on this last passage that Dr. Stubbs specially relies; but a -careful comparison of this with the two preceding extracts will show -that in none of them are "pensions" spoken of. The grants, as indeed -charters prove, always consisted of actual estates. - -The next point is that these alienations were, for the most part, made -in favour not of "fiscal earls," but, on the contrary, in favour of -those who were not created earls.[804] There is reason to believe, from -such evidence as we have, that, in this matter, the Empress was a worse -offender than the king, while their immaculate successor, as his -Pipe-Rolls show, was perhaps the worst of the three. It is, at any rate, -a remarkable fact that the only known charter by which Stephen creates -an earldom—being that to Geoffrey de Mandeville (1140)—does not grant a -pennyworth of land, while the largest grantee of lands known to us, -namely, William d'Ypres, was never created an earl.[805] Then, again, as -to "the third penny." It is not even mentioned in the above -creation-charter, and there is no evidence that "the third penny of the -county was given" to all Stephen's earls; indeed, as I have elsewhere -shown, it was probably limited to a few (see Appendix H). - -The fact is that the whole view is based on the radically false -assumption of the "poverty" of Stephen's earls. The idea that his earls -were taken from the ranks is a most extraordinary delusion. They -belonged, in the main, to that class of magnates from whom, both before -and after his time, the earls were usually drawn. Dr. Stubbs's own words -are in themselves destructive of his view:— - - "Stephen made Hugh Bigod Earl of Norfolk, Aubrey de Vere Earl of - Oxford, Geoffrey de Mandeville Earl of Essex, Richard de Clare Earl of - Hertford, William of Aumâle Earl of Yorkshire, Gilbert de Clare Earl of - Pembroke, Robert de Ferrers Earl of Derby, and Hugh de Beaumont Earl of - Bedford."[806] - -Were such nobles as these "new men"? Had _their_ "poverty" to be -"relieved"? Why, their very names are enough; they are those of the -noblest and wealthiest houses in the baronage of Stephen's realm. Even -the last, Hugh de Beaumont, though not the head of his house, had two -elder brothers earls at the time, nor was it proposed to create him an -earl till, by possession of the Beauchamp fief, he should be qualified -to take his place among the great landowners of the day. - -Having thus, I hope, completely disposed of this strange delusion, and -shown that Stephen selected his earls from the same class as other -kings, I now approach the alleged deposition of the earls created by the -Empress and himself, on the accession of Henry II. - -I would venture, on the strength of special research, to make several -alterations in the lists given by Dr. Stubbs.[807] - -The earldoms he assigns to Stephen are these:— - - NORFOLK. Hugh Bigod (before 1153). - OXFORD. Aubrey de Vere (_questionable_). - ESSEX. Geoffrey de Mandeville (before 1143). - HERTFORD. Richard de Clare (uncertain). - YORKSHIRE. William of Aumâle (1138). - PEMBROKE. Gilbert de Clare (1138). - DERBY. Robert de Ferrers (1138). - BEDFORD. Hugh de Beaumont. - KENT. William of Ypres (_questionable_). - -From these we must at once deduct the two admitted to be "questionable:" -William of Ypres, because I am enabled to state absolutely, from my own -knowledge of charters, that he never received an English earldom,[808] -and Aubrey de Vere, because there is no evidence whatever that Stephen -created him an earl. On the other hand, we must add the earldoms of -Arundel (or Chichester or Sussex) and of Lincoln.[809] When thus -corrected, the list will run:— - - DERBY. Robert de Ferrers (1138). - YORKSHIRE. William of Aumâle (1138). - PEMBROKE. Gilbert de Clare (1138). - ESSEX. Geoffrey de Mandeville (1140). - LINCOLN. William de Roumare (? 1139-1140). - NORFOLK. Hugh Bigod (before February, 1141). - ARUNDEL. William de Albini (before Christmas, 1141). - HERTFORD. Gilbert de Clare[810] (before Christmas, 1141). - BEDFORD. Hugh de Beaumont (? 1138). - -A glance at this list will show how familiar are these titles to our -ears, and how powerful were the houses on which they were bestowed. With -the exception of the last, which had a transitory existence, the names -of these great earldoms became household words. - -Turning now to the earldoms of the Empress, and confining ourselves to -new creations, we obtain the following list:— - - CORNWALL. Reginald fitz Roy (? 1141). - DEVON. Baldwin de Redvers (before June, 1141). - DORSET (or SOMERSET). William de Mohun (before June, 1141). - HEREFORD. Miles of Gloucester (July, 1141). - OXFORD. Aubrey de Vere (1142). - WILTSHIRE ("SALISBURY"). Patrick of Salisbury (in or before 1149).[811] - -This varies from Dr. Stubbs's list in omitting ESSEX (Geoffrey de -Mandeville) as only a confirmation, and adding DEVON (Baldwin de -Redvers), an earldom which is always, but erroneously, stated to have -been conferred upon Baldwin's father _temp._ Henry I.[812] Of these -creations, Hereford is the one of which the facts are best ascertained, -while Dorset or Somerset is that of which least is known.[813] - -The merest glance at these two lists is sufficient to show that the -titles conferred by the rival competitors for the crown were chosen from -those portions of the realm in which their strength respectively lay. -Nor do they seem to have encroached upon the sphere of one another by -assigning to the same county rival earls. This is an important fact to -note, and it leads us to this further observation, that, contrary to the -view advanced by Dr. Stubbs, the earls created in this reign took their -title, wherever possible, from the counties in which lay their chief -territorial strength. Of the earldoms existing at the death of Henry -(Chester, Leicester, Warwick, Gloucester, Surrey, [Northampton?], -Huntingdon, and Buckingham[814]), Surrey was the one glaring exception -to this important rule. Under Stephen and Matilda, in these two lists, -we have fifteen new earls, of whom almost all take their titles in -accordance with this same rule. Hugh Bigod, Robert de Ferrers, William -of Aumâle, Geoffrey de Mandeville, William de Albini, William de -Roumare, William de Mohun, Baldwin de Redvers, Patrick of Salisbury, are -all instances in point. The only exceptions suggest the conclusion that -where a newly created earl could not take for his title the county in -which his chief possessions lay, he chose the nearest county remaining -vacant at the time. Thus the head of the house of Clare must have taken -Hertford for his title, because Essex had already been given to -Geoffrey, while Suffolk was included in the earldom of Hugh, as "Earl of -the East Angles." So, too, Miles of Gloucester must have selected -Hereford, because Gloucester was already the title of his lord. Aubrey -de Vere, coming, as he did, among the later of these creations, could -not obtain Essex, in which lay his chief seat, but sought for Cambridge, -in which county he held an extensive fief. But here, too, he had been -forestalled. He had, therefore, to go further afield, receiving his -choice of the counties of Oxford, Berks, Wilts, or Dorset. And of these -he chose the nearest, Oxford to wit. Here then we have, I think, a -definite principle at work, which has never, so far as I know, been -enunciated before. - -It may have been observed that I assume throughout that each earl is the -earl of a county. It would not be possible here to discuss this point in -detail, so I will merely give it as my own conviction that while comital -rank was at this period so far a personal dignity that men spoke of Earl -Hugh, Earl Gilbert, or Earl Geoffrey, yet that an earl without a county -was a conception that had not yet entered into the minds of men.[815] In -this, of course, we have a relic of the earl's _official_ character. To -me, therefore, the struggles of antiquaries to solve puzzles of their -own creation as to the correct names of earldoms are but waste of paper -and ink, and occasionally, even, of brain-power. "Earl William" might be -spoken of by that style only, or he might be further distinguished by -adding "of Arundel," "of Chichester," or "of Sussex." But his earldom -was not affected or altered by any such distinctive addition to his -style. A firm grasp of the broad principle which I have set forth above -should avoid any possibility of trouble or doubt on the question. - -But, keeping close to the "fiscal earls," let us now see whether, as -alleged, they were deposed by Henry II., and, if so, to what extent. - -According to Dr. Stubbs, "amongst the terms of pacification which were -intended to bind both Stephen and Henry ... the new earldoms [were] to -be extinguished."[816] Consequently, on his accession as king, "Henry -was bound to annul the titular creations of Stephen, and it was by no -means certain within what limits the promise would be construed."[817] -But I cannot find in any account of the said terms of pacification any -allusion whatever to the supposed "fiscal earls." Nor indeed does Dr. -Stubbs himself, in his careful analysis of these terms,[818] include -anything of the kind. The statement is therefore, I presume, a -retrospective induction. - -The fact from which must have been inferred the existence of the above -promise is that "cashiering of the supposititious earls" which rests, so -far as I can see, on the statement of a single chronicler.[819] Yet that -statement, for what it is worth, is sufficiently precise to warrant Dr. -Stubbs in saying that "to abolish the 'fiscal' earldoms" was among the -first of Henry's reforms.[820] The actual words of our great historian -should, in justice, be here quoted:— - - "Another measure which must have been taken at the coronation [December - 19, 1154], when all the recognized earls did their homage and paid - their ceremonial services, seems to have been the degrading or - cashiering of the supposititious earls created by Stephen and Matilda. - Some of these may have obtained recognition by getting new grants; but - those who lost endowment and dignity at once, like William of Ypres, - the leader of the Flemish mercenaries, could make no terms. They sank - to the rank from which they had been so incautiously raised" (_Early - Plantagenets_, pp. 41, 42). - - "We have no record of actual displacement; some, at least, of the - fiscal earls retained their dignity: the earldoms of Bedford, Somerset, - York, and perhaps a few others, drop out of the list; those of Essex - and Wilts remain. Some had already made their peace with the king; - some, like Aubrey de Vere, obtained a new charter for their dignity: - this part of the social reconstruction was despatched without much - complaint or difficulty" (_Const. Hist._, i. 451). - -Before examining these statements, I must deal with the assertion that -William of Ypres was a fiscal earl who "lost endowment and dignity at -once." That he ever obtained an English earldom I have already ventured -to deny; that he lost his "endowment" at Henry's accession I shall now -proceed to disprove. It is a further illustration of the danger -attendant on a blind following of the chroniclers that the expulsion of -the Flemings, and the fall of their leader, are events which are always -confidently assigned to the earliest days of Henry's reign.[821] For -though Stephen died in October, 1154, it can be absolutely proved by -record evidence that William of Ypres continued to enjoy his rich -"endowment" down to Easter, 1157.[822] Stephen had, indeed, provided -well for his great and faithful follower, quartering him on the county -of Kent, where he held ancient demesne of the Crown to the annual value -of £261 "blanch," _plus_ £178 8_s._ 7_d._ "numero" of Crown escheats -formerly belonging to the Bishop of Bayeux. Such a provision was -enormous for the time at which it was made. - -Returning now to the "cashiering" of the earls, it will be noticed that -Dr. Stubbs has great difficulty in producing instances in point, and can -find nothing answering to any general measure of the kind. But I am -prepared to take firm ground, and boldly to deny that a single man, who -enjoyed comital rank at the death of Stephen, can be shown to have lost -that rank under Henry II. - -Rash though it may seem thus to impugn the conclusions of Dr. Stubbs _in -toto_, the facts are inexorably clear. Indeed, the weakness of his -position is manifest when he seeks evidence for its support from a -passage in the _Polycraticus_:— - - "The following passage of the _Polycraticus_ probably refers to the - transient character of the new dignities, although some of the persons - mentioned in it were not of Stephen's promoting: "Ubi sunt, ut de - domesticis loquar, Gaufridus, Milo, Ranulfus, Alanus, Simon, - Gillibertus, non tam comites regni quam hostes publici? Ubi Willelmus - Sarisberiensis?" (_Const. Hist._, i. 451 note). - -For this passage has nothing to do with "the transient character of the -new dignities": it alludes to a totally different subject, the _death_ -of certain magnates, and is written in the spirit of Henry of -Huntingdon's _De Contemptu Mundi_.[823] The magnates referred to are -Geoffrey, Earl of Essex (d. 1144); Miles, Earl of Hereford (d. 1143); -Randulf, Earl of Chester (d. 1153); Count Alan of Richmond (d. 1146?); -Simon, Earl of Northampton (d. 1153); and Gilbert, Earl of Pembroke (d. -1148).[824] Their names alone are sufficient to show that the passage -has been misunderstood, for no one could suggest that the Earl of -Chester or Earl Simon, Waltheof's heir, enjoyed "new dignities," or that -their earldoms proved of a "transient character."[825] - -Of the three cases of actual displacement tentatively selected by Dr. -Stubbs, Bedford may be at once rejected; for Hugh de Beaumont had lost -the dignity (so far as he ever possessed it[826]), together with the -fief itself, in 1141.[827] York requires separate treatment: William of -Aumâle sometimes, but rarely, styled himself, under Stephen, Earl of -York; he did not, however, under Henry II., lose his comital rank,[828] -and that is sufficient for my purpose. The earldom of Dorset (or -Somerset) is again a special case. Its existence is based—(1) on "Earl -William de Mohun" appearing as a witness in June, 1141; (2) on the -statement in the _Gesta_ that he was made Earl of Dorset in 1141; (3) on -his founding Bruton Priory, as "William de Mohun, Earl of Somerset," in -1142. The terms of the charter to Earl Aubrey may imply a doubt as to -the _status_ of this earldom, even in 1142, but, in any case, it does -not subsequently occur, so far as is at present known, and there is -nothing to connect the disappearance of the title with the accession of -Henry II.[829] - -Such slight evidence as we have on the dealings of Henry with the earls -is opposed to the view that anything was done, as suggested, "at the -coronation" (December 19, 1154). It was not, we have seen, till January, -1156, that charters were granted dealing with the earldoms of Essex and -of Oxford. And it can only have been when some time had elapsed since -the coronation that Hugh Bigod obtained a charter creating him anew Earl -of Norfolk.[830] - -To sum up the result of this inquiry, we have now seen that no such -beings as "fiscal" earls ever existed. No chronicler mentions the name, -and their existence is based on nothing but a false assumption. Stephen -did not "incautiously" confer on men in a state of "poverty" the dignity -of earl; he did not make provision for them by Exchequer pensions; no -promise was made, in the terms between Henry and himself, to degrade or -cashier any such earls; and no proof exists that any were so cashiered -when Henry came to the throne. Indeed, we may go further and say that -Stephen's earldoms all continued, and that their alleged abolition, as a -general measure, has been here absolutely disproved. - -[799] So also Gneist: "Under Stephen, new comites appear to be created -in great numbers, and with extended powers; but these pseudo-earls were -deposed under Henry II." (_Const. Hist._, i. 140, _note_). - -[800] Stubbs, _Const. Hist._, i. 362. Hence the name of "fiscal earls," -invented, I believe, by Dr. Stubbs. See also Addenda. - -[801] See also _Select Charters_, p. 20. - -[802] The error arises from a not unnatural, but mistaken, rendering of -the Latin. The term "fiscus" was used at the time in the sense of Crown -demesne. Thus Stephen claimed the treasures of Roger of Salisbury "quia -eas tempore regis Henrici, avunculi et antecessoris sui, _ex fisci regii -redditibus_ Rogerius episcopus collegisset" (_Will. Malms._). So, too, -in the same reign, the Earl of Chester is suspected of treason, "quia -_regalium fiscorum redditus_ et castella, quæ violentur possederat -reddere negligebat" (_Gesta_). This latter passage has been -misunderstood, Miss Norgate, for instance, rendering it: "to pay his -dues to the royal treasury." It means that the earl refused to surrender -the Crown castles and estates which he had seized. Again, speaking of -the accession of Henry of Essex's fief to the Crown demesne, William of -Newburgh writes: "amplissimo autem patrimonio ejus _fiscum_ auxit." - -[803] Anno 1155. Under the year 1171 he records a searching -investigation by Henry into the alienated demesnes in Normandy. - -[804] The erroneous view is also found in a valuable essay on "The Crown -Lands," by Mr. S. R. Bird, who writes: "It is true that extensive -alienations of those lands [the demesne lands of the Crown] took place -during the turbulent reign of Stephen, in order to enable that monarch -to endow the new earldoms" (_Antiquary_, xiii. 160). - -[805] The king's "second charter" to Geoffrey de Mandeville is not in -point, for it was unconnected with his creation as earl, and was -necessitated by the grants of the Empress. - -[806] _Const. Hist._, i. 362. - -[807] "As Stephen's earldoms are a matter of great constitutional -importance, it is as well to give the dates and authorities" (_Ibid._, -i. 362). - -[808] There is a curious allusion to him in John of Salisbury's letters -(ed. Giles, i. 174, 175) as "famosissimus ille tyrannus et ecclesiæ -nostræ gravissimus persecutor, Willelmus de Ypra" (cf. pp. 129, 206 -_n._, 213 _n._, 275 _n._). - -[809] A shadowy earldom of Cambridge, known to us only from an -Inspeximus _temp._ Edward III., and a doubtful earldom of Worcestershire -bestowed on the Count of Meulan, need not be considered here. - -[810] Son of Richard de Clare, who, in Dr. Stubbs's list and elsewhere, -is erroneously supposed to have been the first earl. - -[811] The earliest mention of Patrick, as an earl, that I have yet found -is in the Devizes charter of Henry (1149). - -[812] In an interesting charter (transcribed in _Lansdowne MS._, 229, -fol. 116_b_) of this Earl Baldwin as "Comes Exonie," granted at -Carisbrooke, he speaks, "Ricardi de Redvers patris mei." - -[813] I have shown (p. 95 _n._) that William de Mohun was already an -earl in June, 1141, though the _Gesta_ assigns his creation to the siege -of Winchester, later in the year. - -[814] Buckingham is a most difficult and obscure title, and is only -inserted here _cavendi causa_. Northampton, also, and Huntingdon are -most troublesome titles, owing to the double set of earls with their -conflicting claims, and the doubt as to their correct title. - -[815] This view is not affected by the fact that two or even more -counties (as in the case of Waltheof's earldom) might be, officially, -linked together, for where this arrangement had lingered on, the group -might (or might not) be treated as one county, as regarded the earl. -Warwick and Leicester are an instance one way; Norfolk and Suffolk the -other. - -[816] _Select Charters_, pp. 20, 21. Cf. _Early Plants._, p. 37: "All -property alienated from the Crown was to be resumed, especially the -pensions on the Exchequer with which Stephen endowed his newly created -earls." - -[817] _Const. Hist._, i. 451. - -[818] _Ibid._, i. 333, 334. - -[819] Robert de Monte. - -[820] _Select Charters_, p. 21. - -[821] The chroniclers are positive on the point. At the opening of 1155, -writes Gervase (i. 161), "Guillelmus de Ypre et omnes fere Flandrenses -qui in Angliam confluxerant, indignationem et magnanimitatem novi regis -metuentes, ab Anglia recesserunt." So, too, Fitz Stephen asserts that -"infra tres primos menses coronationis regis Willelmus de Ypra violentus -incubator Cantiæ cum lachrymis emigravit." - -[822] Pipe-Rolls, 2 and 3 Hen. II. (published 1844). - -[823] Compare also the moralizing of Ordericus on the death of William -fitz Osbern (1071): "Ubi est Guillelmus Osberni filius, Herfordensis -comes et Regis vicarius," etc. - -[824] This is the date given for his death in the _Tintern Chronicle_ -(_Monasticon_, O.E., i. 725). - -[825] "William of Salisbury" was a deceased magnate, but is mentioned by -himself in the above passage because he was not an earl. As he is -overlooked by genealogists, it may be well to explain who he was. He -fought for the Empress at the siege of Winchester, where he was taken -prisoner by the Earl of Hertford (_Will. Malms._, ed. Stubbs, ii. 587). -He was also the "Willelmus ... civitatis Saresbiriæ præceptor ... et -municeps" (_Gesta_, ed. Howlett, p. 96), who took part in the attack on -Wilton nunnery in 1143, and "lento tandem cruciatu tortus interiit." -This brings us to a document in the register of St. Osmund (i. 237), in -which "Walterus, Edwardi vicecomitis filius, et Sibilla uxor mea et -heres noster Comes Patricius" make a grant to the church of Salisbury -"nominatim pro anima Willelmi filii nostri fratris comitis Patricii in -restauramentum dampnorum quæ prænominatus filius noster Willelmus Sarum -ecclesie fecerit." The paternity of William is thus established. - -[826] I have never found him attesting any charter as an earl, though -this does not, of course, prove that he never did so. - -[827] _Gesta_ (ed. Howlett), pp. 32, 73. - -[828] Aumâle ("Albemarle") is notoriously a difficult title, as one of -those of which the bearer enjoyed comital rank, though whether as a -Norman count or as an English earl, it is, at first, difficult to -decide. Eventually, of course, the dignity became an English earldom. - -[829] Nor was it an earldom of Stephen's creation. - -[830] It was granted at Northampton. Its date is of importance as -proving that the charter to the Earl of Arundel, being attested by Hugh -as earl, must be of later date. Mr. Eyton, however, oddly enough, -reverses the order of the two (_Itinerary of Henry II._, pp. 2, 3). He -was thus misled by an error in the witnesses to the Earl of Arundel's -charter, which Foss had acutely detected and explained long before. - - - - - APPENDIX E. - THE ARRIVAL OF THE EMPRESS. - (See p. 55.) - - -The true date of this event is involved in considerable obscurity. The -two most detailed versions are those of William of Malmesbury and of the -Continuator of Florence of Worcester. The former states precisely that -the Ecclesiastical Council lasted from August 29 to September 1 (1139), -and that the Empress landed, at Arundel, on September 30; the latter -gives no date for the council, but asserts that the Empress landed, at -Portsmouth, before August 1—that is, two months earlier. These grave -discrepancies have been carefully discussed by Mr. Howlett,[831] though -he fails to note that the Continuator is thoroughly consistent in his -narrative, for he subsequently makes the Empress remove from Bristol, -after spending "more than two months" there, to Gloucester in the middle -of October. He is, however, almost certainly wrong in placing the -landing at Portsmouth,[832] and no less mistaken in placing it so early -in the year. The "in autumno" of Ordericus clearly favours William -rather than the Continuator. - -Mr. Howlett, in his detailed investigation of this "exceedingly complex -chronological difficulty," endeavours to exalt the value of the _Gesta_ -by laying peculiar stress on its mention of Baldwin de Bedvers' landing, -as suggestive of a fresh conjecture. Urging that "Baldwin's was in very -truth the main army of invasion," he advances the - - "theory that the expedition came in two sections, for the _Gesta - Stephani_ say that Baldwin de Bedvers arrived 'forti militum catervâ,' - as no doubt he did, for it was only his presence in force that could - render the coming of Maud and her brother with twenty or thirty - retainers anything else than an act of madness." - -Here we see the danger of catching at a phrase. For if the _Gesta_ says -that Baldwin landed "forti militum catervâ" (p. 53), it also asserts -that the Empress came "cum robustâ militum manu" (p. 55)—a phrase which -Mr. Howlett ignores—while it speaks of her son, in later years, arriving -"cum florida militum catervâ," when, according to Mr. Howlett, "his -following was small" (p. xvii.), and when, indeed, the _Gesta_ itself -(p. 129) explains that this "florida militum catervâ" was in truth -"militum globum exiguum." But this is not all. Mr. Howlett speaks, we -have seen, of "twenty or thirty retainers," and asserts that "Malmesbury -and Robert of Torigny agree that he [Earl Robert] had but a handful of -men—twenty, or even twelve as the former has it" (p. xxiv.). It is -difficult to see how he came to do so, for William of Malmesbury -distinctly states that he brought with him, not twelve, but a hundred -and forty knights,[833] and, in his recapitulation of the earl's -conduct, repeats the same number. Now, if the _Gesta_ admits that the -little band of knights who accompanied, in later years, the young Henry -to England, was swollen by rumour to many thousands,[834] surely it is -easy to understand how the hundred and forty knights, who accompanied -the earl to England, were swollen by rumour (when it reached the -Continuator of Florence of Worcester) to a "grandis exercitus,"—without -resorting to Mr. Howlett's far-fetched explanation that the Continuator -confused the two landings and imagined that the Empress had arrived with -Baldwin, who "landed at Wareham ... about August 1." But if he was so -ill informed, what is the value of his evidence? And indeed, his -statement that she landed "at Portsmouth" (not, be it observed, at -Wareham, nor with Baldwin) places him out of court, for it is accepted -by no one. Mr. Howlett offers the desperate explanation, which he terms -"no strained conjecture," that "Earl Robert went on by sea to -Portsmouth," a guess for which there is no basis or, indeed, -probability, and which, even if admitted, would be no explanation; for -the Continuator takes the Empress and her brother to Portsmouth first -and to Arundel afterwards. - -The real point to strike one in the matter is that the Empress should -have landed in Sussex when her friends were awaiting her in the west—for -Mr. Howlett fails to realize that she trusted to them and not to an -"army" of her own.[835] The most probable explanation, doubtless, is -that she hoped to evade Stephen, while he was carefully guarding the -roads leading from the south-western coast to Gloucester and Bristol. -Robert of Torigny distinctly implies that Stephen had effectually closed -the other ports ("Appulerunt itaque apud Harundel, quia tunc alium -portum non habebant"). - -In any case Mr. Howlett's endeavour to harmonize the two conflicting -dates—the end of July and the end of September—by suggesting as a -compromise the end of August, cannot be pronounced a success.[836] - -It may afford, perhaps, some fresh light if we trace the king's -movements after the arrival of the Empress. - -Though the narratives of the chroniclers for the period between the -landing of the Empress and the close of 1139 are at first sight -difficult to reconcile, and, in any case, hard to understand, it is -possible to unravel the sequence of events by a careful collation of -their respective versions, aided by study of the topography and of other -relative considerations. - -On the landing of the Empress, the Earl of Gloucester, leaving her at -Arundel, proceeded to Bristol (_Will. Malms._, p. 725). Stephen, who, -says Florence's Continuator (p. 117), was then besieging Marlborough, -endeavoured to intercept him (_Gesta_, p. 56), but, failing in this, -returned to besiege the Empress at Arundel (_ibid._; _Cont. Flor. Wig._, -p. 117; _Gervase_, i. 110). Desisting, however, from this siege, he -allowed her to set out for Bristol.[837] Meanwhile, her brother, on his -way to Bristol, had held a meeting with Brian fitz Count (_Will. -Malms._, p. 725), and had evidently arranged with him a concerted plan -of action (it must be remembered that they intended immediate revolt, -for they had promised the Empress possession of her realm within a few -months[838]). Brian had, accordingly, returned to Wallingford, and -declared at once for the Empress (_Gesta_, p. 58). Stephen now marched -against him, but either by the advice of his followers (_ibid._) or from -impatience at the tedium of the siege,[839] again abandoned his -undertaking, and leaving a detachment to blockade Brian (_Cont. Flor. -Wig._, p. 118), marched west, himself, to strike at the centre of the -revolt. He first attacked and captured Cerney (near Cirencester), a -small fortress of Miles of Gloucester (_Gesta_, p. 59; _Will. Malms._, -p. 726), and was then called south to Malmesbury by the news that Robert -fitz Hubert had surprised it (on the 7th of October) and expelled his -garrison (_Will. Malms._, p. 726; _Cont. Flor. Wig._, p. 119; _Gesta_, -p. 59). Recovering the castle, within a fortnight of its capture (_Will. -Malms._, p. 726), after besieging it eight days (_Cont. Flor. Wig._, p. -125), he was then decoyed still further south by the news that Humphrey -de Bohun, at the instigation of Miles, had garrisoned Trowbridge against -him. Here, however, he was not so fortunate (_Will. Malms._, p. 726; -_Gesta_, p. 59). In the meanwhile Miles of Gloucester, with the instinct -of a born warrior, had seized the opportunity thus afforded him, and, -striking out boldly from his stronghold at Gloucester, marched to the -relief of Brian fitz Count. Bursting by night on the blockading force, -he scattered them in all directions, and returned in triumph to -Gloucester (_Gesta_, p. 60). It was probably the tidings of this -disaster (though the fact is not so stated) that induced Stephen to -abandon his unsuccessful siege of Trowbridge, and retrace his steps to -the Thames valley (_ibid._, pp. 61, 62). This must have been early in -November.[840] - -Seizing his chance, the active Miles again sallied forth from -Gloucester, but this time toward the north, and, on the 7th of November, -sacked and burnt Worcester (_Cont. Flor. Wig._, pp. 118-120). About the -same time he made himself master of Hereford and its county for the -Empress (_Will. Malms._, p. 727; _Gesta_, p. 61). Stephen was probably -in the Thames valley when he received news of this fresh disaster, which -led him once more to march west. Advancing from Oxford, he entered -Worcester, and beheld the traces of the enemy's attack (_Cont. Flor. -Wig._, p. 121). After a stay there of a few days, he heard that the -enemy had seized Hereford and were besieging his garrison in the castle -(_ibid._).[841] He therefore advanced to Leominster by way of Little -Hereford,[842] but Advent Sunday (December 3) having brought about a -cessation of hostilities, he retraced his steps to Worcester (_ibid._). -Thence, after another brief stay, he marched back to Oxford, probably -making for Wallingford and London. Evidently, however, on reaching -Oxford, he received news of the death of Roger, Bishop of -Salisbury.[843] It was probably this which led him to keep his Christmas -at Salisbury. Thither, therefore, he proceeded from Oxford, returning at -the close of the year to Reading (_ibid._). - -The question, then, it will be seen, is this. Assuming, as we must do, -that William of Malmesbury is right in the date he assigns to Stephen's -visit to Malmesbury and recovery of Malmesbury Castle, is it consistent -with the date he assigns to the landing of the Empress and her brother? -That is to say, is it possible that the events which, we have seen, must -have occurred between the above landing and Stephen's visit to -Malmesbury can have been all comprised within the space of a fortnight? -This is a matter of opinion on which I do not pronounce. - -[831] Introduction to _Gesta Stephani_, pp. xxi.-xxv. - -[832] The _Gesta_ and Robert "De Monte" concur with William that it was -at Arundel. - -[833] "Centum et quadraginta milites tunc secum adduxit." - -[834] "Ut fama adventus ejus se latius, sicut solet, diffunderet, multa -scilicet millia secum adduxisse ... postquam certum fuit ... militum eum -globum exiguum, non autem exercitum adduxisse" (p. 130). - -[835] William of Malmesbury, who was well informed, lays stress on this, -describing the earl as "fretus pietate Dei et fide legitimi sacramenti; -ceterum multo minore armorum apparatu quam quis alius tam periculosum -bellum aggredi temptaret ... in sancti spiritus et dominæ sanctæ Mariæ -patrocinio totus pendulus erat." - -[836] Mr. Freeman (_Norm. Conq._, v. 291) takes the place of landing -(Portsmouth) from the one account, and the date (September 30) from the -other, without saying so. I notice this because it is characteristic. -Thus Mr. James Parker (_Early History of Oxford_, p. 191) observes of -Mr. Freeman's account of the Conqueror's advance on London: "Though by -leaving out here and there the discrepancies, the residue may be worked -up into a consecutive and consistent series of events, such a process -amounts to making history, not writing it. Amidst a mass of -contradictory evidence it is impossible to arrive at any sure -conclusion.... It is, however, comparatively easy to piece together such -details as will fit out of the various stories; and more easy still to -discover reasons for the results which such mosaic work produces." - -[837] See p. 55. - -[838] _Cont. Flor. Wig._, p. 115. - -[839] "Obsidionis diutinæ pertæsus" (_ibid._, p. 118). - -[840] It is an instance of the extraordinary confusion, at this point, -in the chroniclers that the author of the _Gesta_ makes him go from -Trowbridge to London, and thence to Ely, omitting all the intervening -events, which will be found set forth above. - -[841] "Fama volante regiæ majestati nunciatur inimicos suos, juratæ -quidem pacis violatores Herefordiam invasisse, monasterium S. Æthelberti -regis et martyris, velut in castellinum munimen penetrasse." It seems -absolutely certain, especially if we add the testimony of the other -MSS., that this passage refers to the attack on the royal garrison in -the castle so graphically described by the author of the _Gesta_, but -(apparently) placed by him among the events of the summer of the -following year. As, however, his narrative breaks off just at this -point, his sequence of events is left uncertain, and in any case the -chronology of the local chronicler, who here writes as an eyewitness, -must be preferred to his. - -[842] This passage (p. 121) should be compared with that on pp. 123, 124 -("Rex et comes ... Oxenefordiam"), which looks extremely like a -repetition of it (as the passage on pp. 110, 111 is an anticipation of -that on pp. 116, 117). - -[843] Assigned to December 11 by William of Malmesbury (p. 727), and to -December 4 by the Continuator (p. 113). The above facts are rather in -favour of the former of the two dates. - - - - - APPENDIX F. - THE DEFECTION OF MILES OF GLOUCESTER. - (See p. 55.) - - -Miss Norgate assigns this event to the early summer of the year -1138,[844] on the authority of Gervase of Canterbury (i. 104). The -statement of that writer is clear enough, but it is also clear that he -made it on the authority of the Continuator of Florence. Now, the -Continuator muddled in inextricable confusion the events of 1138 and -1139. In this he was duly followed by Gervase, who gives us, under 1138, -first the arrest of the bishops at Oxford (June, 1139), then the -_diffidatio_ of the Earl of Gloucester, next the revolt of 1138 and the -defection of Miles, next the invitation to the Empress (1139), followed -by the Battle of the Standard (1138), and lastly the death of the Bishop -of Salisbury (December, 1139). This can be clearly traced to the -Continuator,[845] and conclusive evidence, if required, is afforded by -the fact that Gervase, like the Continuator, travels again over the same -ground under 1139. Thus the defection of Miles is told twice over, as -will be seen from these parallel extracts:— - - CONT. FLOR. WIG. - (1138.) - - "Interim facta conjuratione adversus regem per predictum Brycstowensem - comitem et conestabularium Milonem, abnegata fidelitate quam illi - juraverant, missis nuntiis ad Andegavensem civitatem accersunt - ex-imperatricem," etc., etc. - - (1139.) - - "Milo constabularius, regiæ majestati redditis fidei sacramentis, ad - dominum suum, comitem Gloucestrensem, cum grandi manu militum se - contulit, illi spondens in fide auxilium contra regem exhibiturum." - - GERV. CANT. - (1138.) - - "Qui [Comes Glaornensis] ... fidei et sacramentis quibus regi tenebatur - renuntiavit.... Milo quoque princeps militiæ regis avertit se a - rege, ... Interea conjuratio in regem facta per comitem Glaornensem et - Milonem summum regis constabularium invaluit, nam missis nuntiis ... - asciverunt ex-imperatricem," etc., etc. - - (1139.) - - "Milo regis constabularius multique procerum cum multa militum manu ab - obsequio regis recesserunt, et pristinis fidei sacramentis innovatis ad - partem imperatricis tuendam conversi sunt." - -It is obvious from these extracts that the Continuator tells the tale of -the constable's _diffidatio_ and defection twice over; it is further -obvious, from his own evidence, that the second of the two dates (1139) -is the right one, for he tells us that so late as February, 1139, -Stephen gave Gloucester Abbey to Gilbert Foliot "petente constabulario -suo Milone."[846] When we find that this event is assigned by the author -of the _Gesta_ to 1139, that the constableship of Miles was not -transferred to William de Beauchamp till the latter part of 1139, and -that Miles is not mentioned among the rebels in 1138 (though his -importance would preclude his omission), nor is any attack on Gloucester -assigned to Stephen in that year, we may safely decide that the -defection of Miles did not take place till the arrival of the Empress in -1139. - -Since writing the above I have noted the presence of Miles of Gloucester -among the followers of Stephen at the siege of Shrewsbury (August, -1138).[847] This is absolutely conclusive, proving as it does that Miles -was still on the king's side in the revolt of 1138. - -[844] _England under the Angevin Kings_, i. 295. - -[845] Ed. Eng. Hist. Soc., ii. 107-113. - -[846] ii. 114. Miss Norgate, having accepted the date of 1138 for the -defection of Miles, finds it difficult to explain this passage. She -writes (i. 494): "Stephen's consent to his appointment can hardly have -been prompted by favour to Miles, who had openly defied the king a year -ago." - -[847] Charter dated in third year of Stephen, "Apud Salopesbiriam in -obsidione" (Nero, C. iii. fol. 177). - - - - - APPENDIX G. - CHARTER OF THE EMPRESS TO ROGER DE VALOINES. - (See p. 87.) - - -As this charter is not included in Mr. Birch's _Fasciculus_, and is -therefore practically unknown, I here give it _in extenso_ from the -_Cartæ Antiquæ_ (K. 24). It will be observed that, of its six witnesses, -five attest the Westminster charter to Geoffrey de Mandeville. The sixth -is Humfrey de Bohun, a frequent witness to charters of the Empress. This -charter is preceded in the _Cartæ Antiquæ_ by enrolments of two charters -to the grantee's predecessors from William Rufus and Henry I. respectively. -The "service" of Albany de Hairon, a Herts tenant-in-capite, is an -addition made by the Empress to these grants of her predecessors. The -_cartæ_ of 1166 prove that it was subsequently ignored. - -"M. Imperatrix regis H. filia archiepiscopis episcopis abbatibus -comitibus baronibus justiciariis vicecomitibus ministris et omnibus -fidelibus suis Francis et Anglis tocius Anglie salutem. Sciatis me -reddidisse et concessisse Rogero de Valoniis in feodo et hereditate sibi -et heredibus suis Esendonam et Begefordiam et molendina Heortfordie et -servitium Albani de Hairon et omnes alias terras et tenaturas patris sui -sicut pater suus eas tenuit die qua fuit vivus et mortuus et preter hoc -quicquid modo tenet de quocunque teneat. Quare volo et firmiter precipio -quod bene et in pace et honorifice et libere et quiete teneat in bosco -et plano in pratis et pascuis in turbariis in via et semita in exitibus -in aquis et molendinis in vivariis et stagnis in foro et navium -applicationibus infra burgum et extra cum socha et saka et thol et theam -et infanenethef et cum omnibus libertatibus et consuetudinibus et -quietantiis cum quibus pater suus melius et quietius et liberius tenuit -tempore patris mei regis Henrici et ipse post patrem. T. R[oberto] -Com[ite] Gloec[estrie] et M[ilone] Gloec[estrie] et Brientio fil[io] -Com[itis] et Rad[ulfo] Painel et Walchel[ino] Maminot et Humfr[ido] de -Buh[un] apud Westmonasterium." - - - - - APPENDIX H. - THE "TERTIUS DENARIUS." - (See p. 97.) - - -Special research has led me to discover that all our historians are in -error in their accounts of this institution. - -The key to the enquiry will be found in the fact that the term "tertius -denarius" had two distinct denotations; that is to say, was used in two -different senses. Dr. Stubbs and Mr. Freeman have both failed to grasp -this essential fact. The two varieties of the "tertius denarius" were -these:— - -(1) The "tertius denarius placitorum comitatus." This is the recognized -"third penny" of which historians speak. Observe that this was not, as -it is sometimes loosely termed, and as, indeed, Gneist describes it, -"the customary third of the revenues of the county,"[848] but, as Dr. -Stubbs accurately terms it, "the third penny of the pleas."[849] So here -the Empress grants to Geoffrey de Mandeville "tertium denarium -vicecomitatus _de placitis_" (cf. p. 239). This distinction is -all-important, for "the pleas" only represented a small portion of the -total "revenues of the county" as compounded for in the sheriff's -_firma_. - -(2) The "tertius denarius redditus burgi." This "third penny," which has -been strangely confused with the other, differs from it in these two -respects. Firstly, it is that, not of the pleas ("placitorum"), but of -the total revenues ("redditus"); secondly, it is that, not of the county -("comitatus"), but of a town alone ("burgi"). - -This distinction, which is absolutely certain from Domesday and from -record evidence, is fortunately shown, with singular clearness, in the -charter of the Empress to Miles of Gloucester, creating him Earl of -Hereford. In it she grants— - - "Tertium denarium redditus burgi Hereford quicquid unquam reddat,[850] - et tertium denarium placitorum totius comitatus Hereford." - -Nor is it less clear in the charter (1155), by which Henry II. creates -Hugh Bigod Earl of Norfolk "scilicet de tercio denario de Norwic et de -Norfolca." - -Now, let us trace how the "tertius denarius redditus burgi" has been -erroneously taken for the "tertius denarius placitorum totius -comitatus," the only recognized "third penny." - -Dr. Stubbs writes: "The third penny of the county which had been a part -of the profits of the English earls is occasionally referred to in -Domesday."[851] The passage on which this statement is based is found -earlier in the volume. Our great historian there writes:— - - "Each shire was under an ealdorman, who sat with the sheriff and bishop - in the folkmoot, and received a third part of the profits of - jurisdiction. (The third penny of the county appears from Domesday [i. - 1. 26, 203, 246, 252, 280, 298, 336] to have been paid to the earl in - the time of Edward the Confessor.—Ellis, _Introduction to Domesday_, i. - 167)."[852] - -The argument that the ealdorman, or earl, of the days before the -Conquest, received "a third part of the profits of jurisdiction" in the -county, rests here, it will be seen, wholly on the evidence of Domesday. -But in six of the eight passages on which Dr. Stubbs relies we are -distinctly dealing, not with the county ("comitatus"), but with a single -town ("burgus"). These are Dover, Lewes, Huntingdon, Stafford, -Shrewsbury, and Lincoln. In these, therefore, the third penny could only -be that of the _redditus burgi_, not of the _placita comitatus_.[853] -Huntingdon is specially a case in point, for there the earl received a -third of each of the items out of which the render ("redditus") of the -town was composed. The only cases of those mentioned which could -possibly concern the third penny "placitorum comitatus" are those of -Yorkshire (298), Lincolnshire (336), and Nottinghamshire with Derbyshire -(280). Even in these, however, "the third penny of the pleas" is only -vaguely implied, the passages referring to a peculiar system which has, -I believe, never obtained the attentive study it deserves. This system -was confined to the Danish district, to which these counties all -belonged. - -The main point, however, which we have to keep in view is that "the -third penny" of the _revenues_ of the _town_ has nothing to do with "the -third penny" of the _pleas_ of the _county_, and that the passages in -Domesday concerning the former must not be quoted as evidence for the -latter. I do not find that Ellis (_Introduction_, i. 167, 168) is -responsible for so taking them, but Dr. Stubbs, as we have seen, clearly -confused the two kinds of _tertius denarius_, and we find that Mr. -Freeman does the same when he tells us that at Exeter "six pounds—that -is, the earl's third penny—went to the Sheriff Baldwin."[854] - -We are reminded by this last instance that not only the earl, but the -sheriff, was concerned with "the third penny" of the _revenues_ of the -_town_. This—which (I would here again repeat) is not the earl's "third -penny" to which historians allude—sometimes, as for instance at -Shrewsbury and Exeter, fell to the sheriff's share. Dr. Stubbs mentions -the case of Shrewsbury only, and takes it as evidence that "the sheriff -as well as the ealdorman was entitled to a share of the profits of -administration."[855] - -This third penny "redditus burgi" is in Domesday absolutely erratic. In -the Wiltshire and Somersetshire towns, it seems to have been held by the -king himself, though at Cricklade both he and Westminster Abbey are -credited with it (64 _b_, 67). At Leicester it was held by Hugh de -Grantmesnil, but we are not told by what right (i. 230). At Stafford it -had been held by the English earl, and had fallen with his estates to -the Crown. The Conqueror kept it, but, halving his own two-thirds share, -made a fresh "third," which he granted to Robert de Stafford.[856] At -Ipswich it had, with the "tertius denarius [_i.e._ placitorum] de duobus -hundret," been annexed to an estate held by the local earl. The whole of -this was granted by the Conqueror to his follower, Earl Alan.[857] At -Worcester, by a curious arrangement, the total render had been divided, -in unequal portions, between the king and the earl, while a third of the -whole was received by the bishop. At Fordwich "the third penny" fell to -Bishop Odo, and was bestowed by him, with the king's consent, on St. -Augustine's, Canterbury, to which the other two-thirds had been given -already by the Confessor. The case of Bristol has led Mr. Freeman into a -characteristic error. We read in Domesday:— - - "Burgenses dicunt quod episcopus G. habet xxxiii marcas argenti et unam - marcam auri p[re]ter firmam regis" (i. 163). - -Mr. Freeman, who is never weary of insisting on the value of Domesday, -is clearly not so familiar as one could wish with its normal -contractions, for he renders the closing words "p_rop_ter firmam regis." -On this he observes: "This looks like the earl's third penny; but -Geoffrey certainly had no formal earldom in Gloucestershire."[858] When -we substitute for the meaningless "propter" the right reading "preter" -("in addition to"), we see at once that the figures given no longer -suggest a "third penny." - -Leaving now the third penny of the revenues of the country town, let us -turn our attention to that of the pleas of the whole county. Independent -of the system in the Danelaw to which I have referred above, we have two -references in Domesday to this "third penny." Firstly, the "tercius -denarius de totâ scirâ Dorsete" (i. 75); secondly (in the case of -Warwickshire) "tercio denario placitorum siræ" (i. 278), yet neither of -these is among the cases appealed to by Dr. Stubbs. Now, the curious -point about them is that in neither instance was the right annexed to -the dignity of earl, but to a certain manor, which manor was held by the -earl. That is to say, he was entitled to this "third penny of the pleas" -not _quâ_ earl, but _quâ_ lord of that estate. The distinction is vital. -Whether "the third penny of the pleas" be that of the whole shire or -only of a single hundred, it is always attached, under the Confessor, to -the possession of some manor. We find the "tercius denarius" of one, of -two, of three, of even six hundreds so annexed.[859] This peculiarity -would seem to have been an essential feature of the system, and I need -scarcely point out how opposed it is to the alleged tenure _ex officio_ -in days before the Conquest, or to that granted to the earl _quâ_ earl -under the Norman and Angevin kings. Let us seek to learn when the latter -institution, the recognized "tertius denarius," became first annexed to -the dignity of earl. - -The prevailing view would seem to be that it was so annexed from the -first; that its possession, in fact, was part of, or rather was connoted -by, the dignity of an earl. Madox held that the oldest mode of -conferring the dignity of earl, a mode "coeval to the Norman Conquest," -was by charter; and he further held that "By the charter the king -granted to the earl the _tertius denarius comitatus_."[860] Dr. Stubbs -writes, of the investiture of earls in the Norman period:— - - "The idea of official position is not lost sight of, although the third - penny of the pleas and the sword of the shire alone attest its original - character" (_Const. Hist._, i. 363). - -Mr. Freeman puts the case thus:— - - "Earldoms are now in their transitional stage. They have become - hereditary; but they carry with them the official perquisite of the - ancient official earls, the third penny of the king's revenues in the - shire."[861] - -Here it may at once be pointed out that the mistake which I referred to -at the outset is again made, "the third penny" being described as that -not of the pleas, but "of the revenues" of the county. Then there is the -question whether this perquisite was indeed the right of "the ancient -official earls." Lastly, we must ask whether the earldoms granted in -this period did unquestionably "carry with them" this "official -perquisite." - -To answer this last question, we must turn to our record evidence. Now, -the very first charter quoted by Madox himself, in support of his own -view, is the creation by Stephen of the earldom of Essex in favour of -Geoffrey de Mandeville. The formula there is quite vague. Geoffrey is to -hold "bene et in pace et libere et quiete et honorifice sicut alii -Comites mei de terrâ meâ melius vel honorificentius tenent Comitatus -suos unde Comites sunt." Here there is nothing about the "third penny," -and we must therefore ask whether its grant is included in the above -formula; that is to say, whether an earl received his "third penny" as a -mere matter of course. The contrary is, it would seem, implied by the -special way in which the "third penny" is granted him in the charter of -the Empress, together with the curious added phrase, "sicut comes habere -debet in comitatu suo." This phrase may, of course, be held to imply -that an earl had, as earl, a recognized right to the sum, but the fact -that in the other charters of the Empress (those of the earldoms of -Hereford and Oxford) the "tertius denarius" is made the subject of a -special grant, and that in her son's charters it is the same, would -suggest that, without such special grant, the right was not conveyed. -This is the view taken by Gneist (who founds, in the main, on Madox):— - - "It is only a _donatio sub modo_, the grant of a permanent income 'for - the better support of the dignity of an earl;' it consists in a mere - order or precept addressed to the sheriff, and is therefore a right of - demand, but no feudal right, and is accompanied by no investiture."[862] - -That the grant of "the third penny" (of the pleas of the county) was not -an innovation introduced in this reign, is proved by the solitary -surviving Pipe-Roll of Henry I., in which, however, there is but one -mention of this "third penny," namely, in the case of the Earl of -Gloucester. Indeed, with the exception of this entry, and of the special -arrangement which existed before the Conquest in the Danish districts -(_ut supra_), it may be said that the charters of the Empress, in 1141, -represent the first occurrence of this "third penny." - -Again, if we turn to the succeeding reign, we find, though the fact -appears to have hitherto escaped notice, that, as far as the printed -Pipe-Rolls take us—that is, for the first few years—less than half the -existing earls were in receipt of the "third penny." Careful examination -of the Rolls of 2-7 Hen. II. reveals this fact. The earls to whom was -paid "the third penny of the pleas" were these: Essex, Hertford, -Norfolk, Gloucester, Wiltshire (Salisbury), Devon, and Sussex. Those who -are not entered in the Rolls, and who, therefore, it would seem, cannot -have received it, are Warwick, Leicester, Huntingdon, Northampton, Derby -(Ferrers), Oxford, Surrey, Chester,[863] Lincoln, and Cornwall. Thus -seven received this sum, and ten did not. The inference, of course, from -this discovery is that the possession of the dignity of an earl did not -_per se_ carry with it "the third penny of the pleas," the right to -which could only be conferred by a special grant.[864] This, apparently -conclusive, evidence illustrates and confirms the words of the -_Dialogus_:— - - "Comes autem est qui tertiam portionem eorum quæ de placitis proveniunt - in quolibet comitatu percipit. Summa namque illa quæ nomine firmæ - requiritur a vicecomite tota non exsurgit ex fundorum redditibus, sed - ex magna parte de placitis provenit; et horum tertiam partem comes - percipit, qui ideo sic dici dicitur, quia fisco socius est et comes in - percipiendis." - - D. "Nunquid ex singulis comitatibus comites ista percipiunt." - - M. "Nequaquam: sed hii tantum ista percipiunt, quibus regum - munificentia, obsequii præstiti vel eximiæ probitatis intuitu comites - sibi creat et ratione dignitatis illius hæc conferenda decernit, - quibusdam hæreditarie, quibusdam personaliter."[865] - -This passage requires to be read as a whole, for the answer might easily -be differently understood, as indeed it has been in the Lords' -Reports,[866] where it is taken to apply to the earls as well as to "the -third penny." The point is of no small importance, for the conclusion -drawn is that "both [the dignity and the third penny] were either -hereditary or personal, at the pleasure of the Crown." Careful reading, -however, will show, I think, that, like the question, the reply deals -with "the third penny" alone. The "hæc conferenda decernit" of the -latter refers to the "ista" of the former. - -Confirmed as they are by the evidence of the Pipe-Rolls, the words of -the _Dialogus_ clearly prove that the view I take is right, and that -Professor Freeman is certainly wrong in stating that "earldoms," at this -stage, "carry with them the third penny."[867] Mr. Hunt, who, here as -elsewhere, seems to follow Dr. Stubbs, writes that:— - - "The earl still received the third penny of all profits of jurisdiction - in his county. With this exception, however, the policy of the Norman - kings stripped the earls of their official character."[868] - -This view must now be abandoned, and the total absence of any allusion, -in Stephen's creation of the earldom of Essex, to "the third penny of -the pleas," must be taken to imply that the charter in question did not -convey a right to that sum. Thus the charter of the Empress to Geoffrey -in 1141 remains the first record in which that perquisite is granted. - -We should also note that the _Dialogus_ passage establishes the fact -that the only recognized "third penny" of the earl was "the third penny -of the pleas," and that the third penny "redditus burgi," which, we saw, -had been taken for it, is not alluded to at all. - -Before leaving this subject it may be well to record the sums actually -received under this heading:— - - £ _s._ _d._ - Devon 18 6 8 - Essex 40 10 10 - Gloucestershire 20 0 0 - Herts. 33 1 6 - Norfolk 28 4 0 - Sussex 13 6 8 - Wilts. 22 16 7[869] - -These figures are sufficient to disprove the view that the third penny -actually formed an endowment for the dignity of an earl, but their chief -interest is found in the light they throw on the farming of the "pleas," -illustrating, as they do, the statement in the _Dialogus_ that the -sheriff's _firma_ "ex magna parte de placitis provenit." For multiplying -these sums by three we obtain the total for which the pleas were farmed -in their respective shires. It will be observed that "the third penny" -is stereotyped in amount, but an important passage bearing upon this -point is quoted by Madox (_Baronia Anglica_, p. 139) from the Roll of 27 -Hen. II.:— - - "Idem Vicecomes redd. comp. de £xxviii de tercio denario Comitatus de - Legercestria de vii annis præteritis, quos Comes Leg. accipere noluit, - nisi haberet similiter de cremento, sicut prædecessores sui recipere - consueverunt tempore Regis Henrici" (_sic_). - -The meaning of this entry is that the earl demanded the "third penny," -not only of the old composition for the "pleas," but also of the -increased sum now paid for them. The passage, of course, is puzzling in -its statement that the earl's predecessors had received "the third -penny," for, so far as the printed Rolls take us, they never did so. A -similar difficulty is caused, in the case of Oxfordshire, by the charter -of Henry II. (see p. 239) granting to Aubrey de Vere its "third penny" -"ut sit inde Comes;" for there is no trace in the printed Rolls of such -payment being made, and in 7 John the then earl actually owes "cc marcas -pro habendo tercio denario Comitatus Oxoniæ de placitis, et ut sit Comes -Oxoniæ."[870] - -Passing from these perplexing cases, on which we need fuller knowledge, -we have a simple example in 12 Hen. III., when, on the death of the Earl -of Essex (February 15, 1228), his annual third penny, as £40 10_s._ -10_d._, was allowed to count, for his heirs, towards the payment of his -debts to the Crown.[871] A much later and most important instance is -that of Devon, where Hugh de Courtenay, as the heir of the Earls of -Devon, is found receiving their "third penny" in 8 Edw. III., though not -an earl, a state of things which provoked a protest, a decision against -him, and, eventually, his elevation to comital rank. - -[848] _Constitutional History_, i. 139. - -[849] _Ibid._, i. 363. - -[850] This insured him his participation _pro rata_ in any future -increase ("crementum") of the render. - -[851] _Const. Hist._, i. 361. - -[852] _Ibid._, p. 113. - -[853] We must, further, observe that, of these six, Lewes, of which we -are not told if, or how, its _redditus_ was divided before the Conquest, -and Shrewsbury, of which we are told that the "third penny" of its -redditus went, not to the earl, but to the sheriff ("Tempore Regis E ... -duas partes habebat rex et _vicecomes_ tertiam") are not in point for -the earl's share. - -[854] _Exeter_, p. 43 (cf. p. 55). - -[855] This passage appears to imply that Dr. Stubbs, who sees in the -"third penny" of the county the perquisite of the earl, would look on -that of the borough as the perquisite of the sheriff. But the latter, as -we have seen, was held, as a rule, by the earl, though occasionally by -the sheriff. - -[856] This has been strangely misunderstood by Mr. Eyton in his analysis -of the Staffordshire survey. See my paper in _Domesday Studies_. - -[857] _Domesday_, ii. 280, 294. We read of Alan's heir, Conan, in 1156, -"Comiti Conano de tercio denario Comit' ix _li._ et x _sol_" (_Rot. -Pip_, 2 Hen. II., p. 8). It is a singular circumstance that Robert de -Torigny alludes to this under 1171, when, at the death of Conan, "tota -Britannia, et _comitatus de Gippewis_ [Ipswich], et honor Richemundie" -passed to the king,—and still more singular that his latest editor, Mr. -Howlett, identifies "Gippewis" with Guingamp (p. 391). - -[858] _Will. Rufus_, i. 40. - -[859] _Domesday_, i. 38 _b_, 101, 87 _b_, 186 _b_, 253; ii. 294 _b_. - -[860] _Baronia Anglica_, pp. 137, 138. - -[861] _Exeter_, p. 55. - -[862] _Const. Hist._, i. 139. - -[863] The Palatinate of Chester is, of course, anomalous, and does not, -strictly, tell either way. - -[864] In the third and fifth years the Earl of Arundel is entered as -receiving the third penny "per breve regis." - -[865] _Dialogus de Scaccario_, ii. 17. - -[866] _Reports on the Dignity of a Peer_, iii. 68. - -[867] Gneist is right in insisting on the fact that an earl was only -entitled to the "tertius denarius" in virtue of a distinct grant, but he -fails to grasp the important point that such grant was not made to every -earl as a matter of course, but only as a special favour. He is also, as -we have seen, quite mistaken as to the extent of the third penny (see p. -287). - -[868] _Norman Britain_, p. 168. - -[869] These figures are taken from the Rolls of 2-7 Hen. II., a range -sufficiently wide to establish their permanence. Occasionally, as in the -case of Wilts and Sussex, the "tertius denarius" seems to be omitted for -a year or two, but this does not affect the general result. - -[870] Pipe-Roll of John, quoted by Madox (_Baronia Anglica_, p. 139). - -[871] Madox (_Baronia Anglica_, p. 139).] - - - - - APPENDIX I. - "VICECOMITES" AND "CUSTODES." - (See pp. 107, 108.) - - -Dr. Stubbs writes: "A measure dictated still more distinctly by this -policy may be traced in the list of sheriffs for A.D. 1130. Richard -Basset and Aubrey de Vere, a judge and a royal chamberlain, act as joint -sheriffs in no less than eleven counties; Geoffrey de Clinton, Miles of -Gloucester, William of Pont l'Arche, the treasurer, are also sheriffs as -well as justices of the king's court" (i. 892). But this statement -requires a certain qualification. For though they appear as sheriffs -(_vicecomites_) on the Roll, and have been always so reckoned, we gather -from one passage in the record that they were, strictly speaking, not -_vicecomites_, but _custodes_. The difference is this. By the former a -county was held _ad firmam_; by the latter it was held _in custodia_. In -the Inquest of Sheriffs (1170) the distinction is clearly recognized. We -there find the expressions used: "sive eos tenuerint ad firmam, sive in -custodia." By the true sheriff (_vicecomes_) the county was, in fact, -leased. He, as its farmer (_firmarius_), was responsible for its annual -rent (_firma_). It was thus, virtually, a speculation of his own, and -the profit, if any, was his. But by a process exactly analogous to that -of a modern landlord taking an estate into his own hands, and farming it -himself through a bailiff, the king could, under special circumstances, -take a county into his own hands, and farm it himself through a bailiff -(_custos_). Henry II., in his twentieth year, did this with London, -putting in his own _custodes_ in the place of the regular sheriffs, and, -in later days, Henry III. and Edward I. did the same. It was this, I -contend, that Henry I. had done with the counties in question. The proof -of it is found in this passage:— - - "Ricardus basset et Albericus de Ver reddunt Compotum de M marcis - argenti de superplus Comitatuum, quas habent _in custodia_" (p. 63). - -Here we have the very same phrase as that in the Inquest of Sheriffs, -while the enormous "superplus" of a thousand marcs must represent the -excess of receipts over the amount required for the _firmæ_, which -excess, the counties being "in custodia," fell to the share of the -Crown. Thus we obtain the right explanation of the employment in this -capacity of royal officers, and we further get a glimpse, which we would -not lose, of one of those administrative changes which, as under -Henry II., tell of a system of government as yet empirical and imperfect. - -It is clear that this measure was no mere development, but a sudden and -unforeseen step. For in the case of Essex, the scene of our story, -William de Eynsford ("Æinesford"), a Kentish landowner, had leased the -county for five years, from Michaelmas, 1128, the consideration he paid -for his lease being a hundred marcs (£66 13_s._ 4_d._). Early in the -second year of his lease, that is between Michaelmas, 1129, and Easter, -1130, he must have been superseded by the royal _custodes_, on the king -taking the county into his own hands. He, however, received -"compensation for disturbance," four-fifths of his hundred marcs ("de -Gersoma") being remitted to him in consideration of his losing four out -of his five years' lease. All this we learn from the brief record in the -Roll (p. 63). - -Another point that should be here noticed is the use of the term -"Gersoma." Retrospectively, its use in this Roll illustrates its use in -Domesday. In those cases, where a _firmarius_ was willing, as a -speculation, to give for an estate more than its fixed rental (_firma_), -he gave the excess "de Gersoma," either in the form of a lump sum, or in -that of an annual payment. - - - - - APPENDIX J. - THE GREAT SEAL OF THE EMPRESS. - (See p. 116.) - - -There yet remains one point, in connection with this remarkable charter, -perhaps the most striking, certainly the most novel, of all. This is -that of the seal. According to the transcript in the Ashmole MSS., the -legend "in circumferentia sigillo" was this: "Matildis Imperatrix Rom' -et Regina Angliæ." - -Now, that any such seal was designed for the Empress has never been -suspected by any historian. We cannot, on a question of royal seals, -appeal to a higher or more recognized authority than Mr. Walter de Gray -Birch. He has written as follows on the subject:— - - "The type of seal of the empress which is invariably fixed to every - document among this collection that bears a seal is that used by her in - Germany as 'Queen of the Romans.'... From this date (1106) to that of - her death, which took place on the 16th of December, A.D. 1167, long - after the solution of the troubles of the years 1140-1142 in England, - she was accustomed to use this seal, and this only. It has never been - suggested by any writer upon the historic seals of England that - Mathildis employed any Great Seal as Queen of England, made after the - conventional characteristics which obtain in the Great Seals of - Stephen, her predecessor, or of her son, King Henry II. The troubled - state of this country, the uncertain movements of the lady, the - unsettled confidence of the people, and the consequent inability of - attending to such a matter as the engraving of a Great Seal—a work, it - must be borne in mind, involving some time and care—are, when taken - together, more than sufficient causes to account for the continued - usage of this type; although we may fairly presume that it was intended - to supersede this foreign seal with one more consentaneously in keeping - with English tradition."[872] - -The seal to which Mr. Birch refers bore the legend "Mathildis dei Gratia -Romanorum regina." - -The question, of course, at once arises as to the amount of reliance -that can be placed on the above transcriber's note. For my part, while -fully admitting the right to reject such evidence, I cannot believe that -any transcriber would for his own private gratification have forged such -a legend, which he could not hope to foist upon the world, if it were -indeed a forgery, since a reference to the original would at once expose -him.[873] And it is quite certain that we cannot account for it by any -misreading, however gross. A comparison of the two legends will put this -out of the question:— - - MATHILDIS DEI GRATIA ROMANORUM REGINA. - MATILDIS IMPERATRIX ROM' ET REGINA ANGLIÆ. - -If we accept the fact, and believe the legend genuine, the first point -to strike us is the substitution of "_Imperatrix_" for "_Regina_ -Romanorum." - -It is passing strange that Maud should have retained, indeed that she -should ever have possessed, a seal which gave her no higher style than -that of "Queen of the Romans." It is true that at the time of her actual -betrothal (1110), her husband was not, in strictness, "emperor," not -having yet been crowned at Rome; yet the performance of that ceremony a -few months later (April, 1111) made him fully "emperor." At the time -therefore of their marriage and joint coronation (1114), they were, one -would imagine, "emperor" and "empress;" and indeed we read in the -_Lüneburg Chronicle_, "dar makede he se to _keiserinne_." At the same -time, as has been well observed, "matters of phrase and title are never -unimportant, least of all in an age ignorant and superstitiously -antiquarian,"[874] and there must be some good reason for what appears -to be a singular contradiction, though the point is overlooked by Mr. -Birch. Two explanations suggest themselves. The one is that while Henry -was fully and strictly "emperor," having been duly crowned at Rome, his -wife, having only been crowned in Germany (1114), was not entitled to -the style of "empress," but only to that of "Queen of the Romans." As -against this, it would seem impossible that the wife of a crowned -emperor can have been anything but an empress. Moreover, from the -pleadings of her advocate at Rome, in 1136 (see p. 257 _n._), we learn -incidentally that she had duly been "anointed to empress." The only -other explanation is that her seal had been engraved in 1110—when the -emperor was, as I have shown, only "Rex Romanorum"—and had not been -altered since. - -It is important to remember that a seal is evidence of formal style, and -not of current phraseology. In spite of the efforts of Messrs. Bryce and -Freeman to insist on accuracy in the matter, it is certain that at the -time of which I write a most loose usage prevailed. Thus William of -Malmesbury, although he specially records the solemn coronation of -Henry V. as "Imperator Romanorum," at Rome in 1111, speaks of him as -"Imperator Alemanniæ," or "Imperator Alemannorum," both before and after -that event. This circumstance is the more notable, because I cannot find -that style recognized in Mr. Bryce's work, where the terms -"German Emperor" and "Emperor of Germany" are treated as recent -corruptions.[875] Its common use in the twelfth century is shown by the -scene, in the next reign, between Herbert of Bosham and the king (May 1, -1166), when the latter takes the former to task for speaking of -Frederick as "King," not as "Emperor" _of the Germans_. Had Henry -enjoyed the advantage of sitting under our own professors, he would have -insisted on Frederick being styled Emperor _of the Romans_; but as he -lived in the twelfth century, he employed, to the annoyance of modern -pedants, the current language of his day.[876] - -It was natural and fitting that, the legend on her seal being at -variance with her style, the Empress should embrace the opportunity -afforded, by the making of a wholly new seal, to bring the two into -harmony. - -The next point is the adoption of the form "Angliæ," not "Anglorum." -This, at first sight, seemed suspicious. For though the abbreviation -found in charters ("Angl'") might stand for "Anglorum" or for "Angliæ," -the legend on the seal of Stephen, as on that of Henry I., contains the -form "Anglorum;" and Matilda styled herself in her charters "Anglorum" -(not "Anglie) Domina." But the remarkable fact that both the queens of -Henry I. bore on their seals the legend "Sigillum ... Reginæ Ang_lie_" -led me to the conclusion that, so far from impugning, this form actually -confirmed the genuineness of the alleged legend. - -It will doubtless be asked why this seal should have been affixed, so -far as we know, to this charter alone. But it is precisely this that -gives it so great an interest. For this is the only known instance of an -original charter, still surviving, belonging to the brief but eventful -period of the Empress's stay at Westminster on the eve of her intended -coronation.[877] It may safely be presumed that a Great Seal was made in -readiness for this event, and that its legend would necessarily include -the style of "Queen of England." The Empress, in at least two of her -charters, had already, though irregularly, assumed this style,[878] and -was clearly eager to adopt it. As to her retention of her foreign style -on her seal as an English sovereign, it might be suggested that she -clung to the loftiest style of all[879] from that haughty pride which -was to prove fatal to her claims; but it is more likely that she found -it needful to distinguish thus her style from that of her rival's queen. -For by a singular coincidence, they would both have had, in the ordinary -course, upon their seals precisely the same legend, viz. "Mathildis dei -gratia Regina Anglie."[880] - -We may then, I think, thus account for the presence of this seal at -Westminster, and for its use, with characteristic eagerness, by the -Empress on this occasion. We may also no less satisfactorily account for -the fact that it was never used again. For this, indeed, the events that -followed the fall of the Empress from her high estate, and the virtual -collapse of her hopes, may be held sufficiently to account. But it is -quite possible that in the headlong flight of the Empress and her -followers from Westminster, the Great Seal may have fallen, with the -rest of her abandoned treasure, into the hands of her triumphant foes. - -[872] _Journ. Brit. Arch. Ass._, xxxi. 381. - -[873] This transcript was taken before the fire in which the charter was -so badly injured. - -[874] Bryce's _Holy Roman Empire_. - -[875] P. 317 (3rd edition). - -[876] "_Rex._ Quare in nomine dignitatis derogas ei, non vocans eum -imperatorem Alemannorum? _Herbertus._ Rex est Alemannorum; sed ubi -scribit, scribit 'Imperator Romanorum, semper Augustus'" (_Becket -Memorials_, iii. 100, 101). - -[877] The two other charters which belong (certainly) to this visit are -known to us only from transcripts. - -[878] "M. Imperatrix Henrici regis filia et Angl[ie] regina." - -[879] We must remember the then supreme position and lofty pretensions -of "the Emperor." - -[880] Original charters of Stephen's queen are so extremely rare, that -we know but little of her seal. Transcripts, however, of two fine -charters of hers, formerly in the Cottonian collection, will be found in -_Add. MS._ 22,641 (fols. 29, 31), and to one of them is appended a -sketch of the seal, the first half of the legend being "Matildis Dei -Gratia," and the second being lost. - - - - - APPENDIX K. - GERVASE DE CORNHILL. - (See p. 121.) - - -Few discoveries, in the course of these researches, have afforded me -more satisfaction and pleasure than that of the origin of Gervase de -Cornhill, the founder of an eminent and wealthy house, and himself a -great City magnate who played, we shall find, no small part in the -affairs of an eventful time. - -The peculiar interest of the story lies in the light it throws on the -close amalgamation of the Normans and the English, even in the days of -Henry I., thereby affording a perfect illustration of the well-known -passage in the _Dialogus_:— - - "Jam cohabitantibus Anglicis et Normannis, et alterutrum uxores - ducentibus vel nubentibus, sic permixtæ sunt nationes, ut vix discerni - possit hodie, de liberis loquor, quis Anglicus, quis Normannus sit - genere."[881] - -It also affords us a welcome glimpse of the territorial aristocracy of -the City, as yet its ruling class. - -It has hitherto been supposed, as in Foss's work, that Gervase de -Cornhill first appears in 1155-56 (2 Hen. II.), in which year he figures -on the Pipe-Roll as one of the sheriffs of London. I propose to show -that he first appears a quarter of a century before, and so to bridge -over Stephen's reign, and to connect the Pipe-Roll of Henry I. with the -earliest Pipe-Rolls of Henry II. The problem before us is this. We have -to identify the "Gervasius filius Rogeri nepotis Huberti," who figures -prominently on the Pipe-Roll of 1130 (31 Hen. I.), with "Gervase, -Justiciary of London," who meets us twice under Stephen, with "Gervase" -who was one of the sheriffs of London in 1155 and 1156, and with Gervase -de Cornhill, whose name occurs at least twice under Stephen, and -innumerable times under Henry II., both in a public and private capacity. - -Let us first identify Gervase de Cornhill with Gervase, the Justiciary -of London. The latter personage occurs once in the legend on the seal -affixed to "a 'star' with Hebrew words," which reads, "Sigillum Gervas' -justitia' Londoniar';"[882] and once in a charter which confirms this -legend, dealing, as it does, with a grant: "Gervasio Justic' de -Lond'."[883] But the land (in Gamlingay) granted to "Gervase, Justiciary -of London," is entered in a survey of the reign of John as held by "the -heirs of Gervase _de Cornhill_" (see p. 121). Similarly, the land -mortgaged in the former transaction to "Gervase, Justiciary of London," -is afterwards found in possession of Henry, son and heir of Gervase _de -Cornhill_. Thus is established the identity of the two. - -The identity of the Gervase who thus flourished in the reigns of Stephen -and Henry II. with the Gervase fitz Roger of 1130 must next occupy our -attention. Here are the entries relating to the latter:— - - "Radulfus filius Ebrardi debet cc marcas argenti pro placitis pecunie - Rogeri nepotis Huberti." - - "Andreas bucca uncta reddit compotum de lxiiij libris et vii solidis et - viiij denariis pro xx libratis terre de terra Rogeri nepotis Huberti." - - "Johannes filius Radulfi filii Ebrardi et Robertus frater suus reddunt - Compotum de DCCCC et ij marcis argenti iiij denarios minus de debitis - Gervasii filii Rogeri pro totâ terrâ patris sui exceptis xx libratis - terræ quas rex retinuit ad opus Andr' bucca uncta.... Et Idem debent - iij marcas auri pro concessione terrarum quas Gervasius eis dedit." - - "Ingenolda uxor Rogeri Nepotis Huberti debet ij marcas auri ut habeat - maritagium et dotem et res suas." - - "Gervasius filius Rogeri nepotis Huberti debet vj libras et xii solidos - et vj denarios de debitis patris sui." - - "Robertus filius Radufi et Johannes frater ejus reddunt Compotum de iij - marcis auri ut rex concederet eis vadimonium et terras quas Gervasius - eis concessit."[884] - -These entries are explained by the charter subjoined, which shows how -John and Robert came to have charge of the estate:— - - "H. rex Angl[orum] Vic' Lund' et omnibus Baronibus et Vicecomitibus in - quorum Bailiis Gervasius filius Rogeri terram habet salutem. Precipio - quod Gervasius filius Rogeri sit saisitus et tenens de omnibus terris - et rebus patris sui sicut pater ejus erat die quo movit ire ad - Jerosolimam.... Et ipse et tota terra sua interim sint in custodia et - saisina Johannis et Roberti filiorum Radulfi.... T. Comite Gloecestrie. - Apud West'."[885] - -John fitz Ralph (fitz Ebrard) was another London magnate, who was more -or less connected with Gervase throughout his career. He is found with -him at St. Albans, late in Stephen's reign, witnessing a charter of the -king;[886] and the two men, as "Gervase and John," were joint sheriffs -of London in 2 Hen. II. He is also the first witness to one of Gervase's -charters after his brother Alan.[887] - -We further find Gervase fitz Roger excused (in the Pipe-Roll of 1130) -the payment of two shillings "de veteri Danegeldo" (? 1127-28) in -Middlesex, and seven shillings "de preterito Danegeldo" (1128-29) -because his land is "waste."[888] The inference to be drawn from all -these passages is that Gervase had then (1130) recently succeeded his -father, a man of unusual wealth and considerable property in land. We -should therefore expect to find him, in his turn, a man of some -importance, as was our own Gervase the Justiciar (_alias_ Gervase de -Cornhill), the only Gervase who meets us as a man of any consequence. -Fortunately, however, we are not dependent on mere inference. The manor -of Chalk was granted by the Crown to Roger "nepos Huberti;"[889] it was -subsequently regranted to Gervase de Cornhill,[890] whom I identify with -Gervase his son. Moreover, the adoption by Gervase of the surname "de -Cornhill" can, as it happens, be accounted for. Among the records of the -duchy of Lancaster is a grant by William, Archbishop of Canterbury -(1123-1136), of land at "Eadintune" to Gervase and Agnes his wife, Agnes -being described as daughter of "Godeleve."[891] By the aid of another -document relating to the same property,[892] we identify this "Godeleve" -as the wife of Edward de Cornhill. To the eye of a trained genealogist -all is thus made clear. - -But we now find ourselves in the midst of a most interesting family -connection. For these same records carry us back to the father of this -"Godeleve," namely, Edward of Southwark.[893] It is true that here he -figures merely as a "æ. desudwerc," but we have only to turn to another -quarter, and there we find "Edwardo de Suthwerke et Willelmo filio ejus" -among the leading witnesses to the invaluable document recording the -surrender by the English Cnihtengild of their soke to the priory of -Christchurch (1125).[894] I need scarcely lay stress on the interest and -importance of everything bearing on that remarkable and as yet -mysterious institution. We find ourselves now brought into actual -contact with the gild. For in one of its members, as named in that -document, "Edwardus Hupcornhill," we recognize no other than that -"Edward of Cornhill" who was son-in-law to "Edward of Southwark."[895] -Following up our man in yet another quarter, we find him witnessing a -London deed (_temp._ William the Dean),[896] and another one of about -the middle of the reign of Henry I.,[897] though wrongly assigned in the -(Hist. MSS.) Report to "about 1127."[898] Lastly, turning to still -another quarter, we find his name among those of the witnesses to an -agreement between Ramsey Abbey and the priory of Christchurch soon after -1125.[899] - -We are now in a position to construct this remarkable pedigree:— - - Edward of Southwark, - living 1125. - | - +---+---------+ - | | - "Ingenolda," = Roger Edward = Godeleve. William, - living 1130. | "nepos de Cornhill,| living 1125. - | Huberti." living 1125.| - | | - | +----------+ - | | - Gervase = Agnes - Fitz Roger de Cornhill, - (afterwards married - Gervase de before 1136. - Cornhill). - -I say that this is a remarkable pedigree because, from the dates, Edward -of Southwark must have been born within a very few years of the -Conquest, and also because we can feel sure, in the case both of him and -of his son-in-law, that we are dealing with men of the old stock, -connected with the venerable gild of English "Cnihts." But it further -shows us how the elder of the two bestowed on his English son the name -of the Norman Conqueror, and how the Norman settlers intermarried with -the English stock. - -Let us now return to the father of Gervase, Roger "nepos Huberti." Here, -again, there come to our help the records of the duchy of Lancaster. -Among them are two royal charters, the first of which grants to Roger -the manor of Chalk, in Kent,[900] while the second was consequent on his -death,[901] and should be read in connection with the above extracts -from the Pipe-Roll of 1130. This charter has a special interest from its -mention of the fact that Roger had gone "ad Jerosolima." We may infer -from this that he had died on pilgrimage.[902] As Gervase inherited from -his father so large an estate, Roger must have been, in his day, a man -of some consequence. It is, therefore, rather strange that his name does -not occur in the report on the muniments of St. Paul's, nor in any other -quarter to which I have been able to refer. Luckily, however, Stow has -preserved for us the gist of a document which he had seen, when he tells -us that on the grant of their soke, in 1125, by the Cnihtengild— - - "The king sent also his sheriffs, to wit Aubrey de Vere and _Roger - nephew to Hubert_, which (upon his behalf) should invest this church - with the possessions thereof; which the said sheriffs accomplished, - coming upon the ground, Andrew Buchevite[903] and the forenamed - witnesses and others standing by."[904] - -If we can trust to this passage, as I believe we certainly can, our -Roger was a sheriff of London in 1125. This makes it highly probable -that he was identical with the "Roger" named in a document addressed, a -few years earlier:— - - "Hugoni de Bocheland, _Rogero_, Leofstano, Ordgaro, et omnibus aliis - baronibus Lundoniæ."[905] - -I do not know of any other Roger who is likely to have been thus -addressed. - -We are given by Gervase de Cornhill a further clue as to his parentage -in a charter of his, under Henry II., in which he mentions Ralph fitz -Herlwin as his uncle ("avunculus"). Ralph fitz Herlwin was in 1130 -joint-Sheriff of London.[906] This clue, therefore, is worth following -up. Now, Ralph must either have been a brother of the father or of the -mother of Gervase. It is highly improbable that Ralph "filius Herlwini" -was a brother of Roger "nepos Huberti," each of the two being always -mentioned by the same distinctive suffix. It may, therefore, be presumed -that Ralph was brother to Roger's wife. Now, we happen to have two -documents which greatly concern this Ralph and his son, and which belong -to one transaction, although they figure widely apart in the report on -the muniments of St. Paul's.[907] Nicholas, son of Ælfgar, parish priest -of the church of St. Michael's, Cheap, a living which, like his father -before him, he held at lease from St. Paul's, exercised his right to the -next presentation in favour of a son of Ralph fitz Herlwin, who had -married his niece Mary. From the evidence now in our possession, we may -construct this pedigree:— - - "Algar Colessune,"[908] "Herlwin." - priest of St.Michael's, | - Cheap. | - | | - +-------+------+ +-------------+-------+------+----- - | | | | | - Nicolas, [dau.] = Baldwin Ralph William Herlwin - priest of | de Arras. fitz fitz fitz - St. Michael's, | Herlwin, Herlwin,[909] Herlwin, - Cheap. | joint-sheriff living 1130. living 1130. - | in 1130. [909] - | | - | +------+----+------------+ - | | | | - Mary = Robert William. Herlwin. - fitz Ralph, - inherited the - living of - St. Michael's - from his - wife's uncle. - - "Herlwin." - | - | - | - ---+------------+ - | - "Ingenolda."[910] = Roger "nepos - | Huberti," - | joint-sheriff, - | 1125. - +-+----------+ - | | - Agnes = Gervase Alan, - de Cornhill, | (nephew to Ralph brother - dau. of Edward | fitz Herlwin), to - de Cornhill. | joint-Sheriff of Gervase. - | London, 1155-56. . - +--------------+--------------+ . - | | | . - Alice[911] = Henry de Reginald Ralph Roger - de Courci, | Cornhill, de Cornhill, de Cornhill. fitz - heiress of | Sheriff of Sheriff of Alan. - the English | London and Kent. - De Courcis, | of Kent and | - afterwards | of Surrey. | - wife of Warin | | - fitz Gerold. | +--------------+ - | | - Joan de = Hugh de Nevill, Reginald de - Cornhill. Forester of England. Cornhill, junior. - -It will have been noticed that in this pedigree I assign to Gervase a -brother Alan. I do so on the strength of a charter of Archbishop -Theobald, late in the reign of Stephen, to Holy Trinity, witnessed -_inter alios_ by "Gervasio de Cornhill et Alano fratre ejus,"[912] also -of a charter I have seen (Duchy of Lanc., _Cart. Misc._, ii. 57), in -which the first witness to a charter of Gervase is Alan, his brother. -The "Roger fitz Alan" for whom I suggest an affiliation to this Alan -occurs among the witnesses to a grant made by Ralph, and witnessed by -Reginald de Cornhill.[913] This suggests such paternity, and his name, -Roger, would then be derived from Roger, his paternal grandfather. We -have here, at least, another clue which ought to be followed up, for -Roger fitz Alan is repeatedly found among the leading witnesses to -London documents of the close of the twelfth and beginning of the -thirteenth centuries, his career culminating in his appointment as mayor -on the death of the well-known "Henry fitz Ailwin" in 1212.[914] - -The fact that Gervase and Alan were brothers tempts one to recognize in -them the "Alanus juvenis et Gervasius fratres," who witness a grant to -(their cousin) Robert fitz Ralph fitz Herlwin,[915] and the "Alanus -juvenis" and "Gervasius frater Alani" of a similar document.[916] But, -unluckily, we find this same Alan elsewhere styled "Alanus filius -_Huberti_ juvenis."[917] Possibly they were sons of that Hubert to whom -his father was "nepos." But the question, for the present, must be left -in doubt. - -Both Gervase de Cornhill and Henry his son appear, it may be added, from -the evidence of charters, to have lent money on mortgage, and to have -acquired landed property by foreclosing. A curious allusion to the -mercantile origin and the profitable money-lending transactions of -Geoffrey is found in a sneer of Becket's biographer, when, as Sheriff of -Kent, he opposed the primate's landing.[918] The contemporary allusion -to such pursuits, in the _Dialogus_, breathes the same scornful spirit -for the trader and all his works.[919] Gervase, I think, may have been -that "Gervase" who, at the head of the citizens of London, met Henry II. -in 1174 (_Fantosme_, l. 1941); he would seem to have lived on till 1183, -and was probably, at his death, between seventy and seventy-five years -old. Among his descendants were a Dean of St. Paul's (1243-1254) and a -Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield (1215-1223). - -[881] _Dialogus_, i. 10. - -[882] Such is the reading given by Anstis, who saw this star among the -duchy records. It is greatly to be hoped that it may still be found. -Anstis describes the device as "a Lyon." - -[883] Duchy of Lancaster: Royal Charters, No. 22. - -[884] _Rot. Pip._, 31 Hen. I., pp. 144, 145, 147-149. Compare the clause -in Henry's charter guaranteeing to the citizens "terras suas et -vadimonia." Here the possession has to be paid for. - -[885] Duchy of Lancaster: Royal Charters, No. 8. - -[886] "Gervasio de Corn ..., Johanne filio Radulfi" (Madox's -_Formularium_, 293). - -[887] Duchy of Lancaster: _Cart. Misc._, ii. 57. - -[888] _Rot. Pip._, 31 Hen. I., pp. 150, 151. - -[889] Duchy of Lancaster: Royal Charters, No. 3. - -[890] _Ibid._, No. 26 (see Pipe-Roll Society: _Ancient Charters_, p. -66). - -[891] Grants in boxes, A., No. 156. - -[892] _Ibid._, 154. - -[893] "Ego Radulfus Archiepiscopus [1114-1122] concedo Æadwardo de -Cornhelle et uxori ejus Godelif et hæredibus suis terram de Eadintune -... quam æ. desudwerc dedit cum filia sua æ. de Cornhelle" (_ibid._, -154). We have here an instance of the caution with which official -calendars should be used. In the official abstract of the above record -(_Thirty-fifth Report of Dep. Keeper_, p. 15), the above words are -rendered, "with his daughter æ. de Cornhelle," the dative being taken -for an ablative, and the wife transformed into her husband! - -[894] _London and Middlesex Arch. Journ._, v. 477. - -[895] The curious form "Hupcornhill" should, of course, be noted. I have -met with a similar form at Colchester, where the name "Opethewalle," -which has been supposed to have been connected with the town wall, -occurs earlier (under Edward I.) as "Opethehelle," _i.e._ up the hill. -The idiom still survives in such forms as "up town" and "up the street." -It probably accounts for the strange name, "Hoppeoverhumber," _i.e._ a -man who came from "up beyond the Humber" (cf. for aspirate "Huppelanda -de Berchamstede"). - -[896] _Ninth Report Hist. MSS._, i. 61 _b_. - -[897] _Ibid._, p. 66 _a_. - -[898] _Ibid._, p. 31 _b_. It is certainly earlier than 1120, when Otuel -fitz Count (the leading witness) was drowned, and probably earlier than -the spring of 1116. - -[899] Pipe-Roll Society: _Ancient Charters_, p. 26 (Eadwardus de -Corhulle). - -[900] Royal Charters, No. 3. This charter must belong to the years -1116-1120. - -[901] _Ibid._, No. 8 (see p. 305). - -[902] This has a curious bearing on the legend that Gilbert Becket, the -primate's father, had journeyed to Palestine, as showing that this was -actually done by a contemporary City magnate. - -[903] This name should be Andrew Buccuinte (Bucca uncta). - -[904] Strype's _Stow_, ii. 4. - -[905] _Ramsey Cartulary_, i. 130. The date there assigned is 1114-1130, -but Hugh de Bocland appears to have died several years before 1130. - -[906] _Rot. Pip._, 31 Hen. I, p. 149. - -[907] _Ninth Report Hist. MSS._, App. i. pp. 20 _a_, 64 _a_. - -[908] The form of this surname should be noted as illustrating the -practice of abbreviation. The name of Ælfgar's father must have been -Colswegen, or some other compound of "Col—" - -[909] See Pipe-Roll of 1130. - -[910] This involves a double supposition: (_a_) that "Ingenolda," who is -proved to have been the widow of Roger, was the mother of his son -Gervase; (_b_) that Ralph fitz Herlwin was brother to the mother, not -the father, of Gervase. These assumptions seem tolerably certain, but, -at present, they can only be provisionally accepted. - -[911] For this descent see Stapleton's preface to the _Liber de Antiquis -Legibus_ (Cam. Soc.). - -[912] From a MS. note of Dugdale (L. 41, dors.). - -[913] _Ninth Report Hist. MSS._, i. 52 _b_. - -[914] This, it must be well understood, is thrown out merely as a -suggestion. - -[915] _Ninth Report Hist. MSS._, i. 64 _a_. - -[916] _Ibid._, 66 _b_. - -[917] _Ibid._, 20 _a_. - -[918] "Cujus jurisdictioni Cantia subjiciebatur, plus besses et -centesimas usuras quam bonum et æquum attendens" (_Becket Memorials_, -iii. 100). - -[919] "Quod si forte miles aliquis vel liber alius a sui status -dignitate, quod absit, degenerans, multiplicandis denariis per publica -mercimonia, vel per turpissimum genus quæstus, hoc est per fœnus -extiterit.... Hiis similis qui multiplicant quocunque modo rem." Compare -_Quadripartitus: ein Englisches Rechtsbuch von 1114_ (ed. Liebermann): -"qui, vera morum generositate carentes et honesta prosapia, longo -nummorum stemmate gloriantur, ... qui vetitum pecunie fenus exercent, -... miseram pecunie stipem, pauperum lacrimis et anxietatibus -cruentatam, omni veritatis et justicie sanctioni mentes perdite -prefecerunt et id solum sapientiam reputant quod eis obtatum pecunie -fenus quibuscunque machinationibus insusurrat" (Dedicatio, § 16, § 33). -Compare also with these Cicero (_De Officiis_, i. 42): "Jam de -artificiis et quæstibus, qui liberales habendi, qui sordidi sint, hæc -præaccepimus. Primum improbantur ii quæstus qui in odia hominum -incurrunt, ut portitorum, ut feneratorum.... Sordidi etiam putandi qui -mercantur a mercatoribus quod statim vendant. Nihil enim proficiunt nisi -admodum mentiantur." - - - - - APPENDIX L. - CHARTER OF THE EMPRESS TO WILLIAM DE BEAUCHAMP. - (See p. 124.) - - -As this important charter has never, I believe, been printed, I have -taken the present opportunity of publishing it _in extenso_. The grantee -must, at first, have staunchly supported Stephen, for he received in -1139, from the king, a grant of that constableship which Miles of -Gloucester had forfeited on his defection.[920] It is evident, however, -from the terms of this charter that he was jealous of Stephen's -favourite, Gualeran, Count of Meulan, and of the power which the king -had given him at Worcester. The grant of Tamworth also should be -carefully noted, because that portion of the Despencer inheritance had -fallen to the share of Marmion, which suggests that the Beauchamps and -the Marmions were at strife, and that therefore, in this struggle, they -embraced opposite sides. An intermarriage between Robert Marmion and -Maud de Beauchamp was probably, as in other cases, a compromise of the -quarrel. - - "M. Imperatrix H. Regis filia et Anglor[um] domina Archiepiscopis - Episcopis Abbatibus Comitibus Baronibus Justic[iariis] vicecomitibus - ministris et omnibus fidelibus suis francis et Anglis tocius Angliæ - salutem. Sciatis me dedisse et reddidisse Willelmo de Bellocampo - hereditario jure Castellum de Wigorn[ia] cum mota sibi et heredibus - suis ad tenendum de me in capite et heredibus meis. Dedi ei et reddidi - vicecomitatum Wigorn[ie] et forestas cum omnibus appendiciis suis in - feodo et hereditarie per eandem firmam quam pater eius Walterus de - Bellocampo inde reddebat. Et de hoc devenit ipse Willelmus meus ligius - homo contra omnes mortales et nominatim contra Gualerann[um] Comitem de - Mellent et ita quod nec ipse Comes Gualeran[us] nec aliquis alius de - hiis predictis mecum finem faciet quin semper ipse Willelmus de me in - capite teneat nisi ipse bona voluntate et gratuita concessione de - predicto Comite tenere voluerit. Et præter hoc dedi ei et reddidi - castellum et honorem de Tamword ad tenend[um] ita bene et in pace et - quiete et plenarie et honorifice et libere sicut unquam melius et - quietius et plenarius et honorificentius et liberius Robertus - Dispensator frater Ursonis de Abbetot ipsum castellum et honorem - tenuerit. Et eciam dedi ei et reddidi Manerium de Cokeford cum omnibus - appendiciis suis ut rectum suum sine placito. Et cum hoc dedi ei et - reddidi Westonam et Luffenham in Roteland cum omnibus appendiciis suis - ut rectum suum similiter sine placito. Dedi eciam ei et concessi de - cremento lx libratas terræ de perquisitione Angl' pro servicio suo. Et - iterum dedi ei et reddidi conestabulatum quem Urso de Abetot tenuit et - dispensam ita hereditarie sicut Walterus pater ejus eam de patre meo H. - Rege tenuit. Et item dedi ei et concessi terras et hereditates suorum - proximorum parentum qui contra me fuerint in Werra mea et mecum finem - facere non poterunt nisi de sua parentela propinquiore michi in ipsa - Werra servierit. Quare volo et firmiter precipio quod de me et de - quocunque teneat bene et honorifice in pace et hereditarie et libere et - quiete teneat ipse Willelmus et heres suus post eum in bosco in plano - in pratis et pasturis in forestis et fugaciis in percursibus et - exitibus in aquis et molendinis in vivariis et piscariis in stagnis et - mariscis et salinis et viis et semitis in foris et in feriis infra - burgum et extra in civitate et extra et in omnibus locis cum saca et - soka et toll et team et Infangenthef et cum omnibus consuetudinibus et - libertatibus et quietudinibus T[estibus] Ep'o Bern[ardo] de S'cto D., - et Nigello Ep'o de Ely, et Rob[erto] Com[ite] Gloec[estrie] et Milon[e] - Com[ite] He[re]ford et Brienc[io] fil[io] Com[itis] et Unfr[ido] de - Buh[un] et Joh[ann]e fil[io] Gilleb[erti] et Walkel[ino] Maminot et - Milon[e] de Belloc[ampo] et Gaufr[edo] de Walt[er]vyll[a] et Steph[ano] - de Belloc[ampo] et Rob[er]to de Colevill et Isnardo park[?ario] - Gaufr[edo] de Abbetot Gilleb[erto] Arch' Nich[olao] fil[io] Isnardi. - Apud Oxineford." - -There can, I think, be little question that this charter passed at -Oxford just after that by which Miles of Gloucester was created Earl of -Hereford (July 25, 1141). It is certainly previous to the Earl of -Gloucester's departure from England in the summer of 1142, and I do not -know of any evidence for the presence of these bishops with the Empress -at Oxford after the rout of Winchester. The names of the eight first -witnesses to this charter are all found in Miles's charter (_Fœdera, -N.E._, i. 14). As to the others, Miles de Beauchamp had held his castle -of Bedford against Stephen (Christmas, 1137), and, though compelled to -surrender it, had regained it on the triumph of the Empress. Stephen de -Beauchamp heads the list of William de Beauchamp's under-tenants in his -_Carta_ (1166), and the Abetots—Heming's "Ursini"—also held of him. -"Isnardus" was a landowner in Worcestershire and witnessed a charter to -Evesham Abbey in 1130. - -The text of this charter—which is taken from the Beauchamp Cartulary -(_Add. MSS._, 28,024, fol. 126 _b_), a most precious volume, of which -the existence is little known—is perhaps corrupt in places, but the -document affords several points of considerable interest. Among them are -the formula "dedi et reddidi" applied to the grantee's previous -possessions, as contrasted with the "dedi et concessi" of the new grant -(60 "librates" of land) and of the grant of his relatives' inheritance; -the reference to the hereditary shrievalty of Worcester; the allusion to -Tamworth Castle as the head of its "honour" (as at Arundel); and the -phrase "de hoc devenit ... meus ligius homo contra omnes mortales," to -be compared with "pro hiis ... devenit homo noster ligius contra omnes -homines" in the charter (1144) to Humfrey de Bohun (Pipe-Roll Society: -_Ancient Charters_, p. 46), and the "homagium suum fecit ligie contra -omnes homines" in the charter to Miles of Gloucester (see p. 56). The -statement that active opponents of the Empress were precluded from -compounding for their offence, except by special intervention, occurs, I -think, here alone. The facts that Urse de Abetot was a constable and -Walter de Beauchamp an hereditary "Dispenser" are also noteworthy, the -latter bearing on the question of the succession to Robert "Dispensator" -(see my remarks in _Ancient Charters_, p. 2). - -[920] See Appendix F. - - - - - APPENDIX M. - THE EARLDOM OF ARUNDEL. - (See p. 146.) - - -It is difficult to overrate the importance of the Canterbury charter to -Geoffrey in its bearing on the origin and nature of this far-famed -earldom. For centuries, antiquaries and lawyers have wrangled over this -dignity, the premier earldom of England, but its true character and -history have remained an unsolved enigma. - -The popular belief that the dignity is "an earldom by tenure" and is -annexed to the possession of Arundel Castle, is based on the petitions -of John fitz Alan in 11 Hen. IV. and of Thomas Howard in 3 Car. I. This -view would be strenuously upheld, of course, by the possessors of the -castle, but neither their own _ex parte_ statements, nor even the tacit -admission of them by the Crown, can override the facts of the case as -established by the evidence of history. The problem is for us, it should -be added, of merely historical interest, as the dignity is now, and has -been since 1627, held under a special parliamentary entail created in -that year. - -Even the warmest advocates of the "earldom by tenure" theory would admit -that such an anomaly was absolutely unique of its kind. The _onus_ of -proving the fact must therefore rest on them, and the presumption, to -put it mildly, is completely against them, for I do not hesitate to say -that to a student of the dignity of an earl the proposition they ask us -to accept is more than impossible: it is ludicrous. - -Tierney endeavoured, with some skill, to rebut the arguments of Lord -Redesdale in the _Reports of the Lords' Committee_, but the advance of -historical research leaves them both behind. The latest words on the -subject have been spoken by Mr. Pym Yeatman, the confidence of whose -assertions and the size of whose work[921] might convey the erroneous -impression that he had solved this ancient riddle. I shall therefore -here examine his arguments in some detail, and, having disposed of his -theories, shall then discuss the facts. - -An enthusiastic champion of the "earldom by tenure" theory, Mr. Yeatman -has further advanced a view which is quite peculiar to himself. So far -as this view can be understood, it "dimidiates" the first earl (d. -1176), and converts him into two, viz. a father who died about 1156, and -a son who died in 1176. This is first described as "certain" (p. -281),[922] then as "probable" (p. 288),[923] lastly, as "possible" (p. -285).[924] But when we look for the foundation of the theory, and for -evidence that the first earl died in 1156, we only read, to our -confusion, that the doings of the Becket earl are "possibly" to be -attributed to "his [the first earl's] son, and we must come to that -conclusion, if we believe the only evidence we possess in relation to -the death of his father in 1156; at any rate, before it is rejected some -reason should be shown for doing so." Yet the only scrap of "evidence" -given us is the incidental remark (p. 283) that "the year 1156 is -usually assigned as that of the death of the first Earl of Arundel." -Now, this is directly contrary to fact. For Mr. Yeatman himself tells us -that Dugdale's is "the generally received account" (p. 282), and -Dugdale, like every one else, kills the first earl in 1176.[925] Again, -it is "very certain," we learn, that the Earl of Arundel "died the 3rd -(_sic_) of October, 1176" (p. 281), while "Diceto is the authority for -the statement that William Albini, Earl of Arundel, died the 17th -(_sic_) of October, 1176" (p. 285), the actual words of the chronicler -being given as "iv. die Octobus" (_sic_). Now, all three dates, as a -matter of fact, are wrong, though this is only introduced to show how -the laborious researches of the author are marred by a carelessness -which is fatal to his work. - -Let us now turn to this argument:— - - "The foundation charter of Bungay, in Suffolk, contains the first entry - known to the author of the title of Earl of Sussex. It was founded in - 1160 by Roger de Glanville.... This charter seems to confirm the - statement that the first Earl of Arundel died about 1156. If not, he - too was styled Earl of Sussex. It disposes as well of the theory that - the first (_sic_) Earl of Arundel was so created[926] in 1176" (p. 284). - -This argument is based on the fact that the house was "founded in 1160." -The _Monasticon_ editors indeed say that this was "about" the date, but, -unluckily, a moment's examination of the list of witnesses to the -charter shows that its date must be much later,[927] while Mr. Eyton -unhesitatingly assigns it to 1188. All the above argument, therefore, -falls to the ground. - -Another point on which the author insists as of great importance is that -the first earl was never Earl of _Sussex_:— - - "The first Earl of Arundel was never called Earl of Sussex, nor did he - bear that title.... His son was the first Earl of Sussex, and he would - certainly have given his father the higher title if he ever bore it. - Yet in confirming his charter to Wymondham, William, Earl of Sussex, - confirms the grants of his ... father, William, the venerable Earl of - Arundel.... An earl could not call himself the earl of a county unless - he had a grant of it, and of this, with respect to the husband of Queen - Adeliza, there is no evidence" (p. 282). - - "That his son was called Earl of Sussex, and that he was the first - earl, is equally clear" (p. 282). - - "The chartulary of the Abbey of Buckenham, which the first Earl of - Arundel founded, preserves the distinction in the titles of himself and - his son and successor already insisted upon. It was founded _tempe_ - Stephen, and the founder is styled William, Count of Chichester. - William, Count of Sussex, confirms the charter" (p. 284). - -But on the very next page he demolishes his own argument by quoting -Hoveden to the effect that "Willielmus (_sic_) de Albineio filio -Willielmi Comitis de _Arundel_ [Rex] dedit comitatum de _Southsex_." For -here his own rule would require that if the late earl was, as he admits, -Earl of _Sussex_, he would not be described as Earl of _Arundel_.[928] - -But, in any case, the still existing charter to Geoffrey de Mandeville -(1141), which the earl attests as "Earl of Sussex" (evidence which does -not stand alone), is absolutely conclusive on the subject, and simply -annihilates Mr. Yeatman's attempts to deny to the husband of Queen -Adeliza the possession of that title. - -With this there falls to the ground the argument based on that denial, -viz.:— - - "There is another argument which appears to have been lost sight of, - which proves distinctly that there was (_sic_) at least five earls, and - probably six, of the name of William de Albini. The record of the 12 - Henry III. which was made after the last earl of that name was dead - three years proves that there were four Earls of Sussex.... Now, the - first Earl of Arundel was never called Earl of Sussex, nor did he bear - that title," etc. (p. 282). - -The above argument that the record in question proves the existence of -_five_, not of four, earls thus falls to the ground. But this is by no -means all. Mr. Yeatman first asserts (p. 281 _a_) that there were five -Albini Earls of Arundel in all, "if indeed there were not six of them." -Deducting the last earl, Hugh de Albini, this leaves us _four_ or _five_ -Earl Williams in succession. Yet on the very next page he urges it (in -the above passage) as "distinctly proved" that "there was (_sic_) at -least _five_ earls, and probably _six_, of the name of William de -Albini." And, lastly, on p. 284, he announces that "there must have been -_six_"! - -We will now dismiss from our minds all that has been written on the -point by Mr. Yeatman and other antiquaries, and turn to the facts of the -case, which are few and beyond dispute. It is absolutely certain, from -the evidence of contemporary chronicles and charters, that the first -Albini earl, the husband of Queen Adeliza, was indifferently styled at -the time (1) Earl of Sussex, (2) Earl of Chichester, (3) Earl of -Arundel, (4) Earl William de Albini. The proofs of user of these styles -are as follows. First, he attests as Earl of Sussex the Canterbury -charter to the Earl of Essex (Christmas, 1141);[929] he also attests as -Earl of Sussex Stephen's charter to Barking Abbey, which may have passed -about the same time. As this charter is of importance for the argument, -I append the full list of witnesses as extracted by me from the Patent -Rolls:— - - "Matild[a] Regina & Will[elm]o Comite de Sudsexa, & Will[elm]o - Mart[el], & Adam de Belum, & Rog[ero] de Fraxin[eto] & Reinald[o] - fil[io] Comitis, & Henr[ico] de Novo Mercato, & Ric[ard]o de Valderi, & - Godefrid[o] de Petrivilla, & Warn[erio] de Lusoris, Apud - Berching[es].[930] - -Secondly, it is as "Earl of Chichester" that he attests four -charters,[931] one of which is dated 1147, and is confirmed by King -Stephen as the grant "quod Comes Willelmus de _Arundel_ fecit;" it is -also as Earl of Chichester that he appears in the Buckenham foundation -charter,[932] and that he confirms the grants to Boxgrove.[933] As to -the two other styles no question arises. - -Thus the case of the earldom of Arundel is one of special interest in -its bearing on the adoption of comital titles. For it affords, according -to the view I have advanced, an example of the use, in a single case, of -all the four possible varieties of an earl's title. These four possible -varieties are those in which the title is taken (1) from the county of -which the bearer is earl, (2) from the capital town of that county, (3) -from the earl's chief residence, (4) from his family name. Strictly -speaking, when an earl was created, it was always (whatever may be -pretended) as the earl of a particular county. The earl and his county -were essentially correlative; nor was it then possible to conceive an -earl unattached to a county. Titles, however, like surnames in that -period of transition, had not yet crystallized into a hard and fast -form, and it was deemed unnecessary, when speaking of an earl, that his -county should always be mentioned. Men spoke of "Earl Geoffrey," or of -"Geoffrey, Earl of Essex," just as they spoke of "King Henry," or of -"Henry, King of the English." If the simple "Earl Geoffrey" was not -sufficiently distinctive, they added his surname, or his residence, or -his county for the purpose of identification. The secondary importance -of this addition is the key to Norman polyonomy. The founder, for -instance, of the house of Clare was known as Richard "Fitz-Gilbert," or -"de Tunbridge," or "de Bienfaite," or "de Clare." The result of this -system, or rather want of system, was, as we might expect, in the case -of earls, that no fixed principle guided the adoption of their styles. -It was indeed a matter of haphazard which of their _cognomina_ -prevailed, and survived to form the style by which their descendants -were known. Thus, the Earls of Herts and of Surrey, of Derby and of -Bucks, were usually spoken of by their family names of Clare and of -Warenne, of Ferrers and of Giffard; on the other hand the Earls of -Norfolk and of Essex, of Devon and of Cornwall, were more usually styled -by those of their counties. Where the name of the county was formed from -that of its chief town, the latter, rather than the county itself, was -adopted for the earl's style. Familiar instances are found in the -earldoms of Chester, Gloucester, and Hereford, of Lincoln, of Leicester, -and of Warwick. Rarest, perhaps, are those cases in which the earl took -his style from his chief residence, as the Earls of Pembroke(shire) from -Striguil (Chepstow), and, perhaps, of Wiltshire from Salisbury, though -here the case is a doubtful one, for "de Salisbury" was already the -surname of the family when the earldom was conferred upon it. The Earl -of Gloucester is spoken of by the Continuator of Florence of Worcester -as "Earl of Bristol" (see p. 284), and the Earls of Derby occasionally -as Earls "of Tutbury," but the most remarkable case, of course, is that -of Arundel itself. It was doubtful for a time by which style this -earldom would eventually be known, and "Sussex," under Henry II., seemed -likely to prevail. The eventual adoption of Arundel was, no doubt, -largely due to the importance of that "honour" and of the castle which -formed its "head." - -Having now established that the earldom of "Arundel" was from the first -the earldom of a county, and thus similar to every other, one is led to -inquire on what ground there is claimed for it an absolutely unique and -wholly anomalous origin. I reply: on none whatever. There is nothing to -rebut the legitimate assumption that William de Albini was created an -earl in the ordinary course of things. Here, again, the facts of the -case, few and simple though they are, have been so overlaid by -assumption and by theory that it is necessary to state them anew. All -that has been hitherto really known is that Queen Adeliza married -William de Albini between King Henry's death (December, 1135) and the -landing of the Empress in the autumn of 1139, and that her husband -subsequently appears as an earl. The assertion that he became an earl on -his marriage, in virtue of his possession of Arundel Castle, is pure -assumption and nothing else.[934] I have already dwelt on the value of -the Canterbury charter to Geoffrey as evidence not only that William was -Earl "of Sussex," but also that he was already an earl at Christmas, -1141. In that charter I claim to have discovered the earliest -contemporary record mention of this famous earldom.[935] William, -therefore, became an earl between Christmas, 1135, and Christmas, 1141. -This much is certain. - -The key to the problem, however, is found in another quarter. The -curious and valuable _Chronicle of the Holy Cross of Waltham_ (_Harl. -MS._, 3776) was the work of one who was acquainted—indeed, too well -acquainted—with the persons and the doings of those two nobles, Geoffrey -de Mandeville and William de Albini. His own neighbourhood became their -battleground, and when William harried Geoffrey's manors, and Geoffrey, -in revenge, fired Waltham, he was among the sufferers himself.[936] The -pictures he draws of these rival magnates are, therefore, of peculiar -interest, and his admiration for Geoffrey is so remarkable, in the face -of the earl's wild deeds, that no apology is needed for quoting the -description in full:— - - "E contra Gaufridus iste præcellens multiformi gratia, præcipuus totius - Anglie, militia quidem præclivis, morum venustate præclarus, in - consiliis regis et regni moderamine cunctis præminens, agebat se inter - ceteros quasi unus ex illis, nullius probitatis suæ garrulus, nullius - probitatis sibi collatæ vel dignitatis nimius ostensator, rei suæ - familiaris providus dispensator, omnium virtutum communium quæ tantum - decerent virum affluentia exuberans, si Dei gratiam diligentius - acceptam et ceteris prelatam, diligens executor menti suæ sedulus - imprimeret; novit populus quod non mentior, quem si laudibus extulerim, - meritis ejus assignari potius quam gratiæ nostræ id debere credimus, - verumptamen gratiæ divinæ de cujus munere venit quicquid boni provenit - homini" (cap. 29). - - "Tempore igitur incendii supra memorati, dum observaret comes ille - ecclesiam cum multis ne succenderetur, amicissimus ipse et devotus - ecclesiæ, afflictus multo dolore quod periclitarentur res ecclesiæ (non - tamen poterat manentibus illis injuriam sibi illatam vindicare)," etc. - (cap. 31). - -As eager to denounce the character of William as to palliate the -excesses of Geoffrey, the chronicler thus sketches the husband of Queen -Adeliza:— - - "Seditionis tempore, cum se inæqualiter agerent homines in terra - nostra, et de pari contenderet modicus cum magno, humilis cum summo, et - fide penitus subacta, nullo respectu habito servi ad dominum, sic - vacillaret regnum et regni status miserabili ductore premeretur fere - usque ad exanimationem, e vicino contendebant inter se duo de præcipuis - terræ baronibus, Gaufridus de Mandeville, et Comes de Harundel, quem - post discessum Regis Henrici conjugio Reginæ Adelidis contigit - honorari, unde et superbire et supra se extolli cœpit ultra modum, ut - [non] posset sibi pati parem, et vilesceret in oculis suis quicquid - præcipuum præter regem in se habebat noster mundus. Habebat tunc - temporis Willelmus ille, pincerna, nondum comes, dotem reginæ Waltham, - contiguam terris comitis Gaufridi de Mandeville, impatiens quidem - omnium comprovincialium terras suo dominio non mancipari.[937] - -In the words "nondum comes" we find the clue we seek. If the writer had -merely abstained from giving William his title, the value of his -evidence would be slight; but when he goes, as it were, out of his way -to inform us that though William, in virtue of his marriage, was already -in possession of the queen's dower, he was "not yet an earl," he tells -us, in unmistakable language, the very thing that we want to know. It -was probably in order to accentuate his pride that his critic reminds us -that the future earl was as yet only a _pincerna_;[938] but, whatever -the motive, the fact remains, on first-hand evidence, that William was -"not yet an earl" at a time when he possessed his wife's dower, and -consequently Arundel Castle. This fact, hitherto overlooked, is -completely destructive of the time-honoured belief that he acquired the -earldom on, and by, obtaining possession of the castle. - -So far, all is clear. But the question is further complicated by William -appearing in two distinct documents as earl, not of Arundel or -Chichester, but of Lincoln! That he held this title is a fact so utterly -unsuspected, and indeed so incredible, that Mr. Eyton, finding him so -styled in a cartulary of Lewes Priory, dismissed the title, without -hesitation, as an obvious error of the scribe.[939] But I have -identified in the Public Record Office the actual charter from which the -scribe worked, and the same style is there employed. Even so, error is -possible; but the evidence does not stand alone. In a cartulary of -Reading[940] we find William confirming, as Earl of Lincoln, a grant -from the queen, his wife, and here again the original charter is there -to prove that the cartulary is right.[941] The early history of the -earldom of Lincoln is already difficult enough without this additional -complication, of which I do not attempt to offer any solution. - -But so far as the earldom of "Arundel" is concerned, I claim to have -established its true character, and to have shown that there is nothing -to distinguish it in its origin from the other earldoms of the day. The -erratic notion of "earldom by tenure," held when the strangest views -prevailed as to peerage dignities, was a fallacy of the _post hoc -propter hoc_ kind, based on the long connection of the castle with the -earls. Nor has Mr. Freeman's strange fancy that the holder of this -earldom is "the only one of his class left" any better foundation in -fact. - -[921] _The Early Genealogical History of the House of Arundel_ (1882). - -[922] "Very certain it is that William Earl of Arundel died the 3rd -(_sic_) of October, 1176, and equally certain is it that this was the -son of the first earl." - -[923] Where the earl of the Becket quarrel is described as "probably his -[the first earl's] son." - -[924] "It is possible that the new earl [son of the earl who died 1176] -was the grandson of the first Earl of Arundel." - -[925] Weever similarly kills him in 1176, though he wrongly assigns the -death of his father (the founder of Wymondham) to 3 Hen. II. - -[926] ? created Earl of Sussex. - -[927] Bishop John of Norwich, for instance, was not elected till 1175. - -[928] Mr. Yeatman attempts to get over this difficulty by suggesting -that "Henry's charter to William, Earl of Arundel, styling himself [? -him] incidentally Earl of Sussex, shows that these earls bore both -titles [_i.e._ Arundel and Sussex], just as the first earl was called of -Chichester as well as of Arundel" (p. 285). But this alternative use of -Arundel and Sussex is precisely what the author denies above, in the -case of the first earl, as impossible. - -[929] _Supra_, p. 143. - -[930] It is not safe from the concurrence of only three witnesses to -assign this charter positively to the same period as the Canterbury one. -The grant which it records is that of the hundred of Barstable, which -Stephen offered "super altare beatæ Mariæ et beatæ Athelburgæ in -ecclesia de Berching[es] per unum cultellum" (Pat. 2 Hen. VI., p. 3, m. -18). - -[931] _Monasticon_, vi. 1169. - -[932] _Ibid._, vi. 419. - -[933] _Ibid._, vi. 645. - -[934] Robert of Torigny, a contemporary witness, speaks of him, in 1139, -as "Willelmus de Albinneio, qui duxerat Aeliz quondam reginam, quæ -habebat castellum et comitatum Harundel, quod rex Henricus dederat ei in -dote." The possession of Arundel by Queen Adeliza may probably be -accounted for by William of Malmesbury's statement that Henry I. had -settled Shropshire on her,—"uxori suæ ... comitatum Salopesberiæ dedit" -(ed. Stubbs, ii. 529),—for this would represent the forfeited -inheritance of the house of Montgomery, including Arundel and its rights -over Sussex. A curious incidental allusion in the _Dialogus_ (i. 7) to -"Salop, _Sudsex_, Northumberland, et Cumberland" having only come to pay -their _firmæ_ to the Crown "per incidentes aliquos casus," suggests -that, like his neighbour in Cheshire, Roger de Montgomery had palatine -rights, including the _firmæ_ of both his counties, Shropshire and -Sussex, which escheated to the Crown on the forfeiture of his heir. - -[935] See p. 146. - -[936] "Intra se igitur tanti viri pacis et tranquillitatis metas -excedentes et seditiose alter alterius predia vastantes contigit -Gaufridum furore exagitatum, quia succenderat Willelmus domos suas et -universam predam terræ suæ abigi fecerat villam Walthamensem succendere -nec posse domibus canonicorum parcere quia reliquis domibus erant -contigue, testimonium prohibemus qui et dampna cum ceteris sustinuimus" -(_Harl. MS._, 3776). Compare p. 222, _supra_. - -[937] There is a curious incidental allusion to the possession of -Waltham by the Earl of Arundel (jure uxoris) in the _Testa de Nevill_ -(p. 270 _b_). In an inquisition of John's reign we have the entry: -"Menigarus le Napier dicit quod Rex Henricus, avus [_lege_ proavus] -domini Regis feodavit antecessores suos per serjantiam de Naperie et -dicit quod _quando comes de Arundel duxit Reginam Aliciam in uxorem_ -removit illud servicium et fecit inde reddere xx sol. per annum et -predictus Menigarus tenet," etc. That is, that while Waltham was in -Henry's hands, he had enfeoffed this man's predecessor by serjeanty, but -that, this tenure becoming inept when the manor passed to a private -owner, the earl substituted for it an annual money rent. Note here how -Henry provided for his widow from escheats rather than Crown demesne, -and observe the origin of the name "Napier," comparing _Testa_, p. 115: -"Robertus Napparius habet feodum unius militis de hereditate uxoris suæ -... dominus Rex perdonavit predicto Roberto et heredibus ejus per cartam -suam predictum servicium militare per unam nappam de precio iii sol. vel -per tres solidos reddendo pro precio illius nappæ." And p. 118: "Thomas -Napar tenet terram suam ... per serjantiam reddendo singulis annis unam -nappam ... et debet esse naparius domini Regis." - -[938] This proves, incidentally, the fact that he had succeeded his -father in this office at the time. - -[939] Speaking of the earl's confirmation of a grant by Alan de -Dunstanville to Lewes Priory, of lands at Newtimber, he writes: "This -confirmation purports to be that of William, Earl of _Lincoln_, but is -addressed to his barons and men of the honour of Arundel. The mistake of -the transcriber is obvious" (_History of Shropshire_, ii. 273). - -[940] _Harl. MS._, 1708, fol. 97. - -[941] _Add. Cart._, 19,586: "Ego Willelmus, Comes Lincolnie." - - - - - APPENDIX N. - ROBERT DE VERE. - (See p. 128.) - - -This personage, who, as charters show, was in constant attendance on -Stephen, is usually, and very naturally, taken by genealogists, from Mr. -Eyton downwards, for a younger brother of Aubrey de Vere (the -chamberlain) and uncle of the first Earl of Oxford. He was, however, -quite distinct, being a son of Bernard de Vere. He owed his position to -a marriage with Adeline, daughter of Hugh de Montfort, as recorded on -the Pipe-Roll of 1130. By this marriage he became possessed of the -honour of Haughley ("Haganet"), and with it (it is important to observe) -of the office of constable, in which capacity he figures among the -witnesses to Stephen's Charter of Liberties (1136). In conjunction with -his wife he founded, on her Kentish estate, the Cluniac priory of Monks -Horton. They were succeeded, in their tenure of the honour, by the -well-known Henry of Essex, who thus became constable in his turn. As -supporting this view that the honour carried the constableship, -attention may be drawn to its _compotus_ as "Honor Constabularie" in -1189-90 (_Rot. Pip._, 1 Ric. I., pp. 14, 15), just before that of the -"Terra que fuit Henrici de Essex." It is therefore worth consideration -whether Robert de Montfort, general to William Rufus—"strator Normannici -exercitus hereditario jure"—may not have really held the post of -constable. - -The history of the Montfort fief in Kent is of interest from the -Conquest downwards owing to its inclusion of Saltwood and other estates -claimed by the Archbishops of Canterbury.[942] Dugdale is terribly at -sea in his account of the Montfort descent, wrongly affiliating the -Warwickshire Thurstan (ancestor of the Lords Montfort) to the Kentish -house, and confusing his generations wholesale (especially in the case -of Adeline, wife of William de Breteuil). - -The fact that Henry of Essex was appealed of treason and defeated in the -trial by battle by a Robert de Montfort (1163), suggests that a grudge -on the part of a descendant of the dispossessed line against himself as -possessor of their fief may have been at the bottom of this somewhat -mysterious affair. - - * * * * * - - NOTE.—Since the above was in type, there has appeared (_Rot. Pip._, 15 - Hen. II., p. 111) a most valuable _compotus_ of the 'Honor - Constabularie' (with a misleading head-line) for 1169, proving that - Gilbert de Gant had held it, at one time, under Stephen, and had - alienated nearly a third of it. - -[942] Saltwood was granted by the Conqueror to Hugh de Montfort, was -recovered by Lanfranc in the great _placitum_ on Pennenden Heath, was -thereafter held by the Montforts from the archbishop as two knights' -fees, was so held by Henry of Essex as their successor, was seized by -the Crown upon his forfeiture, was persistently claimed by Becket, and -was finally restored to the see by Richard I. - - - - - APPENDIX O. - "TOWER AND CASTLE." - (See p. 149.) - - -The description of the Tower by the Empress, in her charter, as "turris -Londonie cum parvo castello quod fuit Ravengeri," and its similar -description in Stephen's charter as "turris Lond[oniæ] cum castello quod -ei subest," though at first sight singular and obscure, are fraught, -when explained, with interest and importance in their bearing on -military architecture. - -It will be found, on reference to the charter granted to Aubrey de Vere -(p. 180), that the Empress gives him Colchester Castle as "turrim et -castellum de Colcestr[a]," a grant confirmed by her son as that of -"turrim de Colcestr[a] et castellum" (p. 185 _n._), and, in later days, -by Henry VIII., as "Castrum et turrim de Colcestr[a]."[943] Further, in -the charter to William de Beauchamp (p. 313), we find Worcester Castle -described as "castellum de Wigorn[ia] cum mota," Hereford Castle being -similarly described in the charter granted at the same time to Miles de -Gloucester as "motam Hereford cum toto castello." Before proceeding to -the inferences to be drawn from these expressions, it may be as well to -strengthen them by other parallel examples. Taking first the case of -Colchester, we turn to a charter of Henry I., granted to his favourite, -Eudo Dapifer, at the Christmas court of 1101,[944] in which Colchester -Castle is similarly described:— - - "Henricus Rex Angliæ Mauricio Lond. Episcopo et Hugoni de Bochelanda et - omnibus baronibus suis Anglis et Francis de Essex salutem. Sciatis me - dedisse benigne et ad amorem concessisse Eudoni Dapifero meo Civitatem - de Colecestrâ et _turrim et castellum_ et omnes ejusdem civitatis - firmitates Cum omnibus quæ ad illam pertinent sicut pater meus et - frater et ego eam melius habuimus et cum omnibus consuetudinibus illis - quas pater meus et frater et ego in eâ unquam habuimus. Et hæc - concessio facta fuit apud Westmonaster in primo natali post concordiam - Roberti comitis fratris mei de me et de illo. - - "T. Rob. Ep. Lincoln et W. Gifardo Wintoniensi electo et Rob. Com. de - Mellent. et Henr. Com. fr. ejus et Roger Bigoto et Gisleberti fil. - Richard et Rob. fil. Baldwin et Ric. fratr. ejus."[945] - -Turning to Hereford, we find its description as "mota cum toto castello" -recurring in the confirmation by Henry II. and the recital of that -confirmation by John.[946] There is another example sufficiently -important to deserve separate treatment. This is that of Gloucester. - -We find that, in 1137, "Milo constabularius Glocestrie" granted to the -canons of "Llanthony the Second" - - "Tota oblatio custodum _turris et castelli_ et Baronum ibi - commorantium."[947] - -Here again the correctness of the description is fortunately confirmed -by subsequent evidence; for John recites (April 28, 1200) a charter of -his father, Henry II. (which is assigned by Mr. Eyton to the spring of -1155), granting to Miles's son, Roger, Earl of Hereford, - - "custodiam _turris Gloc' cum toto castello_," etc., etc.... "per eandem - firmam quam reddere solebat comes Milo pater ejus tempore H. R. avi - mei;"[948] - -while Robert of Torigny speaks, independently, of "discordia quæ erat -inter regem Anglorum Henricum et Rogerium, filium Milonis de -Gloecestria, propter _turrim_ Gloecestrie."[949] The "tower" of -Gloucester is also referred to in the Pipe-Roll of 1156,[950] and in the -Cartulary of Gloucester Abbey.[951] The importance of its mention lies -in the fact that it establishes the character of Gloucester Castle, and -proves that what the leading authority has written on the subject is -entirely erroneous. Mr. G. T. Clark, in his great work on our castles, -refers thus to Gloucester:— - - "The castle of Gloucester ... was the base of all extended operations - in South Wales. Here the kings of England often held their court, and - here their troops were mustered. Brichtric had a castle at Gloucester, - _but his mound has long been removed, and with it all traces of the - Norman building_."[952] - -In another place he goes further still:— - - "Gloucester, a royal castle, stood on the Severn bank, at one angle of - the Roman city. _It had a mound and a shell-keep, now utterly - levelled_, and the site partially built over. It was the muster-place - and starting-point for expeditions against South Wales, and the not - infrequent residence of the Norman sovereigns."[953] - -It may seem rash, in the teeth of these assertions, to maintain that -this mound and its shell-keep are alike imaginary, but the word "turris" -proves the fact. For, as Mr. Clark himself observes with perfect truth, - - "in the convention between Stephen and Henry of Anjou (1153) the - distinction is drawn between '_Turris_ Londinensis et _Mota_ de - Windesorâ,' London having a square keep or tower, and Windsor a - shell-keep upon a mound."[954] - -So the keep of Gloucester, being a "turris" and not a "mota," was -clearly "a square tower" and not "a shell-keep upon a mound." The fact -is that Mr. Clark's assertions would seem to be a guess based on the -hypothesis, itself (as could be shown) untenable, that "Brichtric had a -castle at Gloucester." Assuming from this the existence of a mound, he -must further have assumed that the Normans had crowned it, as elsewhere, -with a shell-keep. But the true character of this great fortress is now -determined. - -Two examples of the double style shall now be adduced from castles -outside England. In Normandy we have an entry, in 1180, referring to -expenditure "in operationibus domorum _turris et castri_," etc., at -Caen;[955] in Ireland the grant of Dublin Castle to Hugh de Laci (1172) -is thus related in the so-called poem of Matthew Regan (ll. 2713-2716):— - - "Li riche rei ad dune baillé - Dyvelin en garde la cité - _E la chastel e le dongun_ - A Huge de Laci le barun." - -The phrase, it will be seen, corresponds exactly with those -employed to describe the castles of Carlisle and Appleby, at the -same period:— - - "Mès voist au rei Henri, si face sa clamur - Que jo tieng Carduil, _le chastel e la tur_." - "Li reis out ubblié par itant sa dolur - Quant avait Appelbi, _le chastel e la tur_."[956] - -Having thus established the use of the phrase, let us now pass to its -origin. - -I would urge that it possesses the peculiar value of a genuine -transition form. It preserves for us, as such, the essential fact that -there went to the making of the mediæval "castle" two distinct factors, -two factors which coalesced so early that the original distinction -between them was already being rapidly forgotten, and is only to be -detected in the faint echoes of this "transition form." - -The two factors to which I refer were the Roman _castrum_ or _castellum_ -and the mediæval "motte" or "tour." The former survived in the -_fortified enclosure_; the latter, in the _central keep_. The Latin word -_castellum_ (corresponding with the Welsh _caer_) continued to be -regularly used as descriptive of a fortified enclosure, whether -surrounded by walls or earthworks.[957] It is singular how much -confusion has resulted from the overlooking of this simple fact and the -retrospective application of the denotation of the later "castle." Thus -Theodore, in the seventh century, styles the Bishop of Rochester, -"Episcopus _Castelli_ Cantuariorum, _quod dicitur Hrofesceaster_" -(_Bæda_, iv. 5); and Mr. Clark gives several instances, from the eighth -and ninth centuries, in which Rochester is alternatively styled a -"civitas" and a "castellum."[958] So again, in the ninth century, where -the chroniclers, in 876 A.D., describe how "bestæl se here into Werham," -etc., Asser and Florence paraphrase the statement by saying that the -host "_castellum quod dicitur Werham_ intravit." Now, it is obvious that -there could be no "castle" at Wareham in 876, and that even if there had -been, an "army" could not have entered it. But when we bear in mind the -true meaning of "castellum," at once all is clear. As Professor Freeman -observes, "Wareham is a fortified town."[959] Its famous and ancient -defences are thus described by Mr. Clark:— - - "In figure the town is nearly square, the west face about 600 yards, - the north face 650 yards.... The outline of this rectangular figure is - an earthwork, within which the town was built."[960] - -Such then was the nature of the "castellum," within which the host took -shelter.[961] Passing now to a different instance, we find the Greek -κώμη ("a village") represented by "castellum" in the Latin Gospels -(Matt. xxi. 2), and this actually Englished as "castel" in the English -Gospels of 1000 A.D.[962] Here again, confusion has resulted from a -misunderstanding. - -As against the _castellum_, the fortified enclosure, we have a new and -distinct type of fortress, the outcome of a different state of society, -in the single "motte" or "tour." I shall not here enter into the -controversy as to the relation between these two forms, my space being -too limited. For the present, we need only consider the "motte" (_mota_) -as a mound (_agger_) crowned by a stronghold (whether of timber or -masonry), but _not_, as Mr. Clark has clearly shown, "crowned with the -square donjon," as so strangely imagined by Mr. Freeman.[963] In the -"tour" (_turris_) we have, of course, the familiar keep of masonry, -rectangular in form, and independent of a mound. - -The process, then, that we are about to trace is that by which the -"motte" or "tour" coalesced with the _castellum_, and by which, from -this combination, there was evolved the later "castle." For my theory -amounts to this: in the mediæval fortress, the keep and the _castellum_ -were elements different in origin, and, for a time, looked upon as -distinct. It was impossible that the compound fortress, the result of -their combination, should long retain a compound name: there must be one -name for the entire fortress, either "tour" (_turris_) or "chastel" -(_castellum_). Which was to prevail? - -This question may have been decided by either of two considerations. On -the one hand, the relative importance of the two factors in the fortress -may have determined the ultimate form of its style; on the other—and -this, perhaps, is the more probable explanation—the older of the two -factors may have given its name to the whole. For sometimes the keep was -added to the "castle," and sometimes the "castle" to the keep. The -former development is the more familiar, and three striking instances in -point will occur below. For the present I will only quote a passage from -Robert de Torigny, to whom we are specially indebted for evidence on -military architecture:— - - (1123) "Henricus rex ... turrem nihilominus excelsam fecit in castello - Cadomensi, et murum ipsius castelli, quem pater suus fecerat, in altum - crevit.... Item castellum quod vocatur Archas, turre et mœnibus - mirabiliter firmavit.... Turrem Vernonis similiter fecit."[964] - -More interesting for us is the other case, that in which the "castle" -was added to the keep, because it is that of the respective strongholds -in the capitals of Normandy and of England. The "Tower of Rouen" and the -"Tower of London"—for such were their well-known names—were both older -than their surrounding wards (_castra_ or _castella_). William Rufus -built a wall "circa turrim Londoniæ" (_Henry of Huntingdon_):[965] his -brother and successor built a wall "circa turrim Rothomagi."[966] The -former enclosed what is now known as "the Inner Ward" of the Tower,[967] -the "parvum castellum" of Maud's charter.[968] - -Of "the Tower of Rouen" I could say much. Perhaps its earliest undoubted -mention is in or about 1078 (the exact date is doubtful), when Robert -"Courthose," revolting from his father "Rotomagum expetiit, et _arcem -regiam_ furtim præoccupare sategit. Verum Rogerius de Iberico ... qui -turrim custodiebat ... diligenter arcem præmunivit," Ordericus here, as -often, using _turris_ and _arx_ interchangeably.[969] Passing over other -notices of this stronghold, we come in 1090 to one of those tragic deeds -by which its history was destined to be stained.[970] Mr. Freeman has -told the tale of Conan's attempt and doom.[971] The duke, who was -occupying the Tower, left it at the height of the struggle,[972] but on -the triumph of his party, and the capture of Conan, the prisoner was -claimed by Henry for his prey and was led by him to an upper story of -the Tower.[973] At this point I pause to discuss the actual scene of the -tragedy. Mr. Freeman writes as follows:— - - "Conan himself was led into the castle, and there Henry took him.... - The Ætheling led his victim up through the several stages of the - loftiest tower of the castle," etc., etc.[974] - -Here the writer misses the whole point of the topography. The scene of -Conan's death was no mere "tower of the castle," but "_the_ Tower," the -Tower of Rouen—_Rotomagensis turris_, as William here terms it. He fails -to realize that the Tower of Rouen held a similar position to the Tower -of London. Thus, in 1098, when Helias of Le Mans was taken prisoner, we -read that "Rotomagum usque productus, in arce ipsius civitatis in -vincula conjectus est" (_Vetera Analecta_), which Wace renders:— - - "Li reis à Roem l'enveia - E garder le recomenda - En la tour le rova garder." - -Again, even in the next reign, a royal charter, assigned by Mr. Eyton to -1114-15, is tested, not at the "castle" of Rouen, but "in _turre_ -Rothomagensi."[975] And so, two reigns after that, a century later than -Conan's death, we find the _custodes_ of "the Tower of Rouen" entered in -the Exchequer Rolls, where it is repeatedly styled "turris." - -Thus at Rouen, as at London, the "Tower" not only preserved its name, -but ultimately imposed it on the whole fortress. And precisely as the -Tower of London is mentioned in 1141 by the transition style of "turris -Londoniæ cum castello," so in 1146 we find Duke Geoffrey repairing -"sartatecta turris Rothomagensis et castelli," after it fell into his -hands.[976] - -Here then we have at length the explanation of a difficulty often -raised. Why is "the Tower of London" so styled?[977] And although, in -England, the style may now be unique, men spoke in the days of which I -write of the "Tower" of Bristol or of Rochester as of the Tower of -Gloucester.[978] Abroad, the form was more persistent, and -special attention may be drawn to the Tower of Le Mans ("Turris -Cenomannica),"[979] because the expression "regia turris" which -Ordericus applies to it is precisely that which Florence of Worcester -applies, in 1114, to the Tower of London, to which it bore an affinity -in its relation to the Roman Wall.[980] - -All that I have said of the "turris" keep is applicable to the "mota" -also, _mutatis mutandis_, for the _motte_, though its name was -occasionally extended to the whole fortress, was essentially the actual -keep, the crowned mound, as is well brought out in the passages quoted -by Mr. Clark from French charters:— - - "Le motte _et les fossez d'entour_ ... le motte de Maiex ... le motte - de mon manoir de Caieux _et les fossez d'entour_."[981] - -Here the "fossez d'entour" represent the surrounding works, the -"castellum" referred to in the charters of the Empress. But between "the -right to hold a moot there," "the moat (_sic_) and castle" as Mr. Hallam -rendered it, "the moat (_sic_) probably the _motte_" of Mr. Clark (ii. -112), and the clever evasion "mote" in the _Reports on the Dignity of a -Peer_ (_Third Report_, p. 163), the unfortunate "mota" of Hereford has -had a singular fate. - - * * * * * - -And now for the results of those conclusions that I have here -endeavoured to set forth. The three castles to which I shall apply them -are those of Rochester, of Newcastle, and of Arques. - -In an elaborate article on the keep of Rochester, Mr. Hartshorne showed -that it was erected, not as was believed by Gundulf, but by Archbishop -William of Corbeuil,[982] between 1126 and 1139. But he did not attempt -to explain what was the "castle of stone" which Gundulf is recorded to -have there constructed. As everything turns on the exact wording, I here -give the relevant portions of the document in point: — - - "Quomodo Willelmus Rex filius Willelmi Regis rogatu Lanfranci - Archiepiscopi concessit et confirmavit Rofensi ecclesiæ S. Andreæ - Apostoli ad victum Monachorum manerium nomine Hedenham; quare Gundulfus - Episcopus _Castrum_ Rofense _lapideum_ totum de suo proprio Regi - construxit. - - "Gundulfus ... illis contulit beneficium ... _castrum_ etenim, quod - situm est in pulchriore parte Hrovecestræ.... Regi consuluerunt [duo - amici] quatinus ... Gundulfus, quia in opere cæmentarii plurimum sciens - et efficax erat, _castrum_ sibi Hrofense _lapideum_ de suo - construeret.... Dixerunt [Archiepiscopus et Episcopus] ... - quotiescunque quidlibet ex infortunio aliquo casu in _castro_ illo - contingeret aut infractione muri aut fissura maceriei, id protinus ... - exigeretur.... Hoc pacto coram Rege inito fecit _castrum_ Gundulfus - Episcopus de suo ex integro totum, costamine, ut reor, lx - librarum."[983] - -Though _castrum_ is the term used throughout, Mr. Parker in his essay on -_The Buildings of Gundulph_, 1863, assumed that a _tower_ must be meant, -and wrote of "Gundulf's tower" in the Cathedral: "This is probably the -tower which Gundulph is recorded to have built at the cost of £60."[984] -So too, Mr. Clark wrote:— - - "As to his architectural skill and his work at Rochester Castle, ... - the bishop [was] to employ his skill, and spend £60 in building a - castle, _that is, a tower_ of some sort. What Gundulf certainly built - is the tower which still bears his name.... It may be that Gundulf's - tower was removed to make way for the new keep, but in this case its - materials would have been made use of, and some trace of them would be - almost certain to be detected. But there is no such trace, so that - probably the new keep did not supersede the other tower."[985] - -Mr. Freeman guardedly observes:— - - "The noble tower raised in the next age by Archbishop Walter (_sic_) of - Corbeuil ... had perhaps not even a forerunner of its own class. - - "Mr. Hartshorne showed distinctly that the present tower of Rochester - was not built by Gundulf, but by William of Corbeuil.... But we have - seen (see _N. C._, vol. iv. p. 366) that Gundulf did build a stone - castle at Rochester for William Rufus ('castrum Hrofense lapidum' - [_sic_]), and we should most naturally look for it on the site of the - later one. On the other hand, there is a tower seemingly of Gundulf's - building and of a military rather than an ecclesiastical look, which is - now almost swallowed up between the transepts of the cathedral. But it - would be strange if a tower built for the king stood in the middle of - the monastic precinct."[986] - -Thus the problem is left unsolved by all four writers. But the true -interpretation of _castrum_, as established by me above, solves it at -once. For just as William of Corbeuil is recorded to have built the -"turris" or rectangular keep,[987] so Gundulf is described as -constructing the _castrum_ or fortified enclosure.[988] We must look, -therefore, for his work in the wall that girt it round. And there we -find it. Mr. Clark himself is witness to the fact:— - - "Part of the curtain of the _enceinte_ of Rochester Castle may also be - Gundulph's work. The south wall looks very early, as does the east - wall."[989] - -But Mr. Irvine had already, in 1874, pointed out, in a brief but -valuable communication, that a distinctive peculiarity of Gundulf's -work—the absence of plinth to his buttresses—is found "in the castle -wall at Rochester (also his)."[990] Thus, it will be seen, the character -of the work independently confirms my own conclusion. - -Some confusion, it may be well to add, has been caused by such forms as -"castellum Hrofi" and "castrum quod nominatur Hrofesceaster." In these -early forms (as in some other cases), "castrum" denotes the whole of -Rochester, girt by its Roman wall, and not (as Mr. Hartshorne assumed -throughout) the castle enclosure. Mr. Clark leaves the point in -doubt.[991] - -Before leaving Rochester, I would point out that, unlike the rest of -Gundulf's work, this _castrum_ can be closely dated. The conjunction of -Lanfranc and William Rufus, in the story of its building, limits it to -September, 1087-March, 1089, while Odo's rebellion would probably -postpone its construction till his surrender. It is most unfortunate, -therefore, that Mr. Clark should write, "This transaction between the -bishop and the king occurred about 1076,"[992] when neither Gundulf was -bishop nor William king. - - * * * * * - -To the case of Newcastle and its keep, I invite special attention, -because we have here the tacit admission of Mr. Clark himself that he -has antedated, incredible though it may seem, by more than ninety years -the erection of this famous keep. To prove this, it is only necessary to -print his own conclusions side by side:— - - (1080.) - - "Of this masonry there is but little which can be referred to the reign - of the Conqueror or William Rufus,—that is, to the eleventh century. Of - that period are certainly (_sic_) ... the keeps of Chester, ... and - Newcastle, though this last looks later than its recorded (_sic_) - date.... Carlisle ... received from Rufus a castle and a keep, now - standing; and Newcastle, similarly provided in 1080, also retains its - keep.... The castle of Newcastle ... was built by Robert Curthose in - 1080, and is a very perfect example of a rectangular Norman keep. - Newcastle, built in 1080, has very many chambers" (_Mediæval Military - Architecture_, 1884, i. 40, 49, 94, 128). - - (1172-74.) - - "Newcastle is an excellent example of a rectangular Norman keep. - - "Its condition is perfect, its date known (_sic_), and being late - (1172-74) in its style, it is more ornate than is usual in its details, - and is furnished with all the peculiarities of a late (_sic_) Norman - work. - - "The present castle is an excellent example of the later (_sic_) form - of the rectangular Norman keep.... Newcastle has its fellow in the keep - of Dover, known to have been the work of Henry the Second" - (_Archæological Journal_, 1884). - -The origin, of course, of the astounding error by which "the great -master of military architecture" misdated this keep by nearly a -century,[993] and took an essentially late work for one of the earliest -in existence, was the same fatal delusion that _castrum_ or _castellum_ -meant precisely what it did not mean, namely, a tower. "Castellum novum -super flumen Tyne condidit" is the expression applied to Robert's work -in 1080, and the absence of a "tower" explains the fact that Fantosme -makes no mention of a "tur" when describing "Le Noef Chasteau sur Tyne," -the existing keep not being available at the time of which he wrote. - - * * * * * - -We now come to our last case, that of the Château d'Arques. - -"Arques," writes Mr. Clark, "is one of the earliest examples of a Norman -castle."[994] It is, Mr. Freeman holds, "a fortress which is undoubtedly -one of the earliest and most important in the history of Norman military -architecture."[995] No apology, therefore, is needed for discussing the -date of this celebrated structure, so long a subject of interest and of -study both to English and to French archæologists. - -As at Colchester and in other places, the very wildest theories have -been generally advanced, and archæologists have only gradually sobered -down till they have virtually agreed upon a date for this keep which is -actually, I venture to think, less than a century wrong. - -In his noble monograph upon the fortress, the basis of all subsequent -accounts,[996] M. Deville enumerates, with contemptuous amusement (pp. -49, 268-272), the rival theories that it was built (1) by the Romans; -(2) by "Clotaire I." in 553—the date 1553 on one of the additions for -the structure having actually been so read; (3) by "Charles Martel" in -745, 747, or 749 (on the strength of another reading of the same date, -confirmed by a carving of his coat-of-arms)—these being the dates given -by Houard and Toussaint-Duplessis. At the time when Deville himself -wrote the study of castles was still in its infancy, and of the two -sources of evidence now open to us, the internal (that of the structure -itself) and the external (that of chronicles and records), the latter -alone was ripe for use. Now, at Arques, precisely as at our own -Rochester, the written evidence has hitherto appeared conflicting to -archæologists, but only because the language employed has never yet been -rightly understood. On the one hand we read in William of Jumièges, an -excellent authority in the matter, that "Hic Willelmus [the Conqueror's -uncle] castrum Archarum in cacumine ipsius montis condidit;" and in the -_Chronicle of Fontenelle_, that this same William "Arcas castrum in pago -Tellau primus statuit;" also, in William of Poitiers, that "id -munimentum ... ipse primus fundavit:" on the other, we read in Robert du -Mont, a first-rate and contemporary authority, who may indeed be termed -a specialist on the subject, that "Anno MCXXIII. castellum quod vocatur -Archas turre et mœnibus mirabiliter firmavit [Rex Henricus]."[997] - -M. de Caumont, that industrious pioneer, whose work appeared four years -before that of M. Deville, boldly followed Robert du Mont, and -confidently assigned the existing keep to 1123.[998] Guided, however, by -M. Le Prévost (1824), he held that the original structure was raised by -the Conqueror's uncle, and that Henry I. merely "fit _re_construire en -entier le donjon et une partie des murs d'enceinte." M. Deville, on the -contrary, in his eager zeal for the honour and glory of the castle, -stoutly maintained that, keep and all, it was clearly Count William's -work. He admitted that his Norman brother-antiquaries assigned it to -Henry I., but urged that they had overlooked the evidence of the -structure, and its resemblance to English keeps assigned (but, as we now -know, wrongly) to the eleventh century, or earlier;[999] and that they -had misunderstood the passage in Robert du Mont, which must have -referred to mere alterations. In order thus to explain it away, he -contends (and this contention Mr. Clark strangely accepts) that Robert -says the same—which he does not—of "Gisors, Falaise, and other castles -known"—which they are not[1000]—"to be of earlier date" (_M. M. A._, i. -194). Lastly, he appeals, though with an apology for doing so ("s'il -nous était permis d'invoquer à l'appui de notre opinion"), to the far -later "Chronique de Normandie" for actual evidence, elsewhere wanting, -that the keep itself (_turris_) was built by William of Arques,[1001] -that is, in 1039-1043.[1002] - -"I went over the castle minutely," Professor Freeman writes, "in May, -1868, with M. Deville's book in hand, and can bear witness to the -accuracy of his description, though I cannot always accept his -inferences" (_N. C._, iii. 124, _note_). He accordingly doubts M. -Deville's date for the gateway and walls of the inner ward, but sees "no -reason to doubt that the ruined keep is part of the original work" -(_ibid._). We must remember, however, that the Professor is at direct -variance with Mr. Clark on the Norman rectangular keeps, for which he -claims an earlier origin than the latter can concede. - -Turning now to Mr. Clark himself, we learn from him that— - - "it seems probable that the keep is the oldest part of the masonry, and - the work of the Conqueror's uncle, Guillaume d'Arques, and it is - supposed to be one of the earliest, if not the earliest, of the - rectangular keeps known" (_M. M. A._, i. 194). - -He adds that the passage in Robert du Mont - - "has been held to show that the whole structure was the work of Henry, - who reigned from 1105 (_sic_) to 1135, and the extreme boldness of the - buttresses and superincumbent constructions of the keep no doubt favour - this view; but, as M. Deville remarks in the same passage, similar - reference is made to Gisors, Falaise, and other castles, known to be of - earlier date" (_ibid._). - -To resume. The external or written evidence is as follows. On the one -hand, we have the clear and positive statement of a contemporary writer, -Robert du Mont, that Henry I. built this keep in 1123. On the other, we -have no statement from any contemporary that it was built by William of -Arques (in 1039-1043). He is merely credited with founding the -_castellum_, and in none of the contemporary accounts of its blockade -and capture by his nephew is there any mention of a _turris_. The -distinction between a _castellum_ and a _turris_, with their respective -independence, has not, as I have shown, hitherto been realized, and it -is quite in the spirit of older students that M. Deville confidently -exclaims— - - "Or, conçoit-on un château-fort sans murailles? Un château-fort sans - donjon, dans le cours du XIᵉ siècle, en Normandie, n'est guère plus - rationnel" (p. 310). - -As to the "murailles," Mr. Clark has taught us that palisades were not -replaced by walls till a good deal later than has been usually supposed; -and as to the "donjon," if, as I have established, so important a -fortress as Rochester was without a keep in the eleventh, and indeed -well into the twelfth century, other _castella_ must have been similarly -destitute—probably, for instance, Newcastle, as we have seen, and -certainly Exeter, of which Mr. Clark writes: "There is no evidence of a -keep, nor, at so great a height, was any needed" (_M. M. A._, ii. 47). -The same argument from strength of position would _à fortiori_ apply to -Arques, and there is, in short, no reason for doubting that the -_castrum_ of William of Arques need not have included a _turris_.[1003] - -On what, then, rests the assertion that the keep was the work of the -Conqueror's uncle? Strange as it may seem, it rests solely on the -so-called _Chronique de Normandie_, an anonymous production, not of the -eleventh, but of the fourteenth century! "Si fist faire une tour moult -forte audessus du chastel d'Arques," runs the passage, which is quoted -by Mr. Clark (i. 194), from Deville (pp. 311, 312), who, however, -apologized for appealing to that authority. This "Chronique" is admitted -to have been based on the poetical histories of Wace and Benoit de St. -More, themselves written several generations later than the alleged -erection of this keep. Of the former, Mr. Freeman holds that, except -where repeating contemporary authorities, "his statements need to be -very carefully weighed" (_N. C._, ii. 162); and of the latter, that he -is "of much smaller historical authority" (_ibid._). To this I may add -that, in my opinion, Wace, writing as he did in the reign of Henry II., -at the close of the great tower-building epoch, spoke loosely of towers, -when mentioning castles, as if they had been equally common in the reign -of the Conqueror. A careful inspection of his poem will be found to -verify this statement. "La tur d'Arques" was standing when he wrote: -consequently he talks of "La tur d'Arques" when describing the -Conqueror's blockade of the castle in 1053. There is no contemporary -authority for its existence at that date.[1004] - -And now let us pass from documentary evidence to that of the structure -itself. We may call Mr. Clark himself to witness that the presumption is -against so early a date as 1039-1043. He tells us, of the rectangular -keep in general, that— - - "not above half a dozen examples can be shown with certainty to have - been constructed in Normandy before the latter part of the eleventh - century, and but very few, if any, before the English conquest" (i. 35). - -Therefore, on Mr. Clark's own showing, we ought to ask for conclusive -evidence before admitting that any rectangular keep is as old as -1039-1043. But what was the impression produced on him by an inspection -of the structure itself? This is a most significant fact. While -rejecting, apparently on what he believed to be documentary evidence, -the theory that the keep (_turris_) was the work of Henry I., he -confessed that the features of the building "no doubt favour this view" -(i. 194, _ut supra_). - -But leaving, for the present, Mr. Clark's views, to which I shall return -below, I take my stand without hesitation on certain features in this -keep. It is not needful to visit Arques—I have myself never done so—to -appreciate their true significance and their bearing on the question of -the date. The first of these is the forebuilding. Mr. Clark tells us -that Arques possesses "the usual square appendage or forebuilding common -in these keeps" (_M. M. A._, i. 198). But this unscientific treatment of -the forebuilding, ignoring so completely its origin and development, -cannot too strongly be resisted. Restricting ourselves to the case -before us, we at once observe the peculiarity of an external staircase, -not only leading up to a forebuilding, through which the keep is -entered, but actually carried, through a massive buttress, round an -angle of the keep.[1005] Rochester being believed to be the work of -Gundulf, in the days when M. Deville wrote, it was natural that he -should have supposed "cette savante combinaison" to have been familiar -to Gundulf (p. 299). But now that, on these points, we are better -informed, let us ask where can Mr. Clark produce an instance of this -elaborate and striking device as old even as the days of Gundulf, to say -nothing of those of Count William (1039-1043)? Where we do find it is in -such keeps as Dover, the work of Henry II., or Rochester, where the -resemblance is even more remarkable. Now, Rochester, as we know, was -actually built within a few years of the date given by Robert du Mont, -and upheld by me, as that of the construction of Arques. Oddly enough, -it is Mr. Clark himself who thus points out another resemblance:— - - "In the basement of the forebuilding ... was a vaulted chamber, opening - into the basement of the keep, _as at Rochester_, either a store or - prison" (_M. M. A._, p. 188). - -Lastly, both at Arques and at Rochester, we find on the first floor, -near the entrance, the very peculiar feature of a smaller doorway -communicating with the rampart of the curtain.[1006] This parallel, -which is not alluded to by Mr. Clark, is the more remarkable, as such a -device is foreign to the earlier rectangular keeps, and also implies -that the keep must have been built certainly no earlier, and possibly -later, than the curtain, which curtain, Mr. Clark, as we shall find, -admits, cannot be so old as the days of Count William. - -No one, in short, unbiassed by supposed documentary evidence, could -study this keep, with its "petites galeries avec d'autres petites -chambres ou prisons pratiquées dans l'épaisseur des murs"[1007] (as at -Rochester), with the elaborate defences of its entrance, and with those -other special features which made even Mr. Clark uneasy, without -rejecting as incredible the accepted view that it was built by Count -William of Arques (1039-1043). And this being so, there is, admittedly, -no alternative left but to assign it to Henry I. (1123), the date -specifically given by Robert du Mont himself. - -But, it may be urged, though there is nothing improbable in Mr. Freeman -being wrong, is it conceivable that so unrivalled an expert as Mr. Clark -himself can have mistaken a keep of 1123 for one of 1039-1043, when we -remember the wonderful development of these structures in the course of -those eighty years? To this objection, I fear, there is a singularly -complete answer in the case of Newcastle, where, as we have seen, he was -led by the same misconception into no less amazing an error.[1008] - -In short, the view I have brought forward as to the separate existence -of "tower" and "castle" may be said, from these examples, to -revolutionize the study of Norman military architecture. - -[943] _Fœdera_ (O.E.), xiii. 251. See p. 179. - -[944] The internal evidence determines its date. - -[945] "Collectanea quædam eorum quæ ad Historiam illustrandam conducunt -selecta ex Registro MSS. sive breviario Monasterii sancti Johannis -Baptistæ Colecestriæ collecto (_sic_) a Joh. Hadlege spectante Johanni -Lucas armigero. Anno Domini, 1633" (_Harl. MS._, 312, fol. 92). This -charter (which, being in MS., was unknown, of course, to Prof. Freeman) -has also an incidental value for its evidence on the Clare pedigree, -Gilbert, Robert, and Richard, the witnesses, being all grandsons of -Count Gilbert, the progenitor of the house. Among the documents in the -_Monasticon_ relating to Bec, we find mention of "Emmæ uxoris Baldewini -filii Comitis Gilberti et filiorum ejus Roberti et Ricardi," which -singularly confirms the accuracy of this charter and its list of -witnesses. This is worth noting, because the charter is curious in form, -and has been described as having "a suspicious ring." It is also found -in (Morant's) transcript of the Colchester cartulary (_Stowe MSS._). - -[946] _Cart._, 1 John, m. 6. - -[947] _Mon. Ang._ (1661), ii. 66 _b_. - -[948] _Cart._, 1 John, m. 6 (printed in Appendix 5 to _Lords' Reports on -Dignity of a Peer_, pp. 4, 5). - -[949] Ed. Howlett, p. 184. - -[950] "In operibus Turris de Gloec' vii _li._ vi _s._ ii _d._" -(Pipe-Roll, 2 Hen. II., p. 78). - -[951] Henry I. gave land to the abbey (1109) "in escambium pro placia -ubi nunc turris stat Gloecestrie" (i. 59). - -[952] _Mediæval Military Architecture_, i. 108. - -[953] _Ibid._, i. 79. - -[954] _Ibid._, i. 29 (cf. "Mota de Hereford"—_Rot. Pip._, 15 Hen. II., -p. 140). - -[955] _Rotuli scaccarii Normanniæ_ (ed. Stapleton), i. 56. The "turris" -had been added by Henry I. (_vide infra_, p. 333). With the above entry -may be compared the phrase in one of Richard's despatches -(1198)—"castrum cepimus cum turre" (_R. Howden_, iv. 58); also the -expression, "tunc etiam comes turrem et castellum funditus evertit," -applied to Geoffrey's action at Montreuil (_circ._ 1152) by Robert de -Torigny (ed. Howlett, p. 159). - -[956] _Chronique de Jordan Fantosme_ (ed. Howlett), ll. 1423, 1424, -1469, 1470. - -[957] It is even applied by Giraldus Cambrensis to the turf entrenchment -thrown up by Arnulf de Montgomery at Pembroke. - -[958] _M. M. A._, ii. 420. - -[959] _English Towns and Districts_, p. 152. - -[960] _Mediæval Military Architecture_, ii. 514. - -[961] There is a strange use of "castellum," apparently in this sense, -in William of Malmesbury's version (ii. 119) of Godwine's speech on the -Dover riot (1051). The phrase is "magnates _illius castelli_," which Mr. -Freeman unhesitatingly renders "the magistrates of that _town_" (_Norm. -Conq._, 2nd ed., ii. 135), a rendering which should be compared with his -remarks on "castles" on the next page but one, and in Appendix S. Mr. -Clark is of opinion that "whether 'castellum' can [here] be taken for -more than the fortified town is uncertain" (_M. M. A._, ii. 8). - -[962] Skeat's _Etymological Dictionary_; Oliphant's _Old and Middle -English_, p. 37. It is not, therefore, strictly accurate to say of the -expression "ænne castel," in the chronicle for 1048, that it was "no -English name," as Mr. Freeman asserts (_Norm. Conq._, 2nd ed., ii. 137), -or to imply that it then first appeared in the language. - -[963] _Norman Conquest_ (2nd ed.), ii. 189. - -[964] Ed. Howlett, p. 106. Robert also mentions (p. 126) the "towers" of -Evreux, Alençon, and Coutances as among those constructed by Henry I. - -[965] "About the Tower," as the chronicle expresses it. - -[966] "Henricus Rex circa turrem Rothomagi ... murum altum et latum cum -propugnaculis ædificat, et ædificia ad mansionem regiam congrua infra -eundem murum parat" (_Robert of Torigny_, ed. Howlett, p. 106). - -[967] I can make nothing of Mr. Clark's chronology. In his description -of the Tower he first tells us that "all save the keep [_i.e._ the White -Tower] is later, and most of it considerably later than the eleventh -century" (_M. M. A._, ii. 205), and then that "the Tower of the close of -the reign of Rufus" (i.e. _before the end of_ "the eleventh century") -... was probably composed of the White Tower with a palace ward upon its -south-east side, and a wall, probably that we now see, and certainly -along its general course, including what is now known as the inner ward" -(_ibid._, ii. 253). Again, as to the Wakefield Tower, which "deserves -very close attention, its lower story being next to the keep in -antiquity" (_ibid._, ii. 220), Mr. Clark tells us that Gundulf (who died -in 1108) was the founder "perhaps of the Wakefield Tower" (_ibid._, ii. -252); nay, that "Devereux Tower ... may be as old as Wakefield, and -therefore in substance _the work of Rufus_" (_ibid._, ii. 253); and yet -we learn of this same basement, that "the basement of Wakefield Tower is -probably late Norman, perhaps of the reign of Stephen or Henry II., -although this is no doubt early for masonry so finely jointed" (_ibid._, -ii. 224). In other words, a structure which was "the work of Rufus," -_i.e._ of 1087-1100, can only be attributed, at the very earliest, to -the days of "Stephen or Henry II.," _i.e._ to 1135-1189. - -[968] The very same phrase is employed by Robert de Torigny in -describing her husband's action at Torigny ten years later (1151): "dux -obsederat castellum Torinneium, sed propter adventum Regis infecto -negotio discesserat; combustis tamen domibus infra muros usque ad turrem -et _parvum castellum circa eam_" (ed. Howlett, p. 161). - -[969] _Ord. Vit._, ii. 296. - -[970] A curious touch in a legend of the time brings before us in a -vivid manner the impression that this mighty tower had made upon the -Norman mind. Hugh de Glos, an oppressor of the poor, appearing, after -death, to a priest by night (1090), declared that the burden he was -compelled to bear seemed "heavier to carry than the Tower of Rouen" -("Ecce candens ferrum molendini gesto in ore, quod sine dubio mihi -videtur ad ferendum gravius Rotomagensi arce."—_Ord. Vit._, iii. 373). - -[971] _W. Rufus_, i. 245-260. - -[972] "De arce prodiit" (_Ord. Vit._, iii. 353). _Arx_, here as above, -is used as a substitute for _turris_. - -[973] "Conanus autem a victoribus in arcem ductus est. Quem Henricus per -solaria turris ducens" (_ibid._, iii. 355). "In superiora Rotomagensis -turris duxit" (_W. Malms._). - -[974] _W. Rufus_, i. 256, 257. - -[975] _Ord. Vit._, v. (Appendix) 199. See p. 422. - -[976] _Robert of Torigny_ (ed. Hewlett), p. 153. - -[977] My alternative explanation of the choice of style, namely, the -importance of the keep itself relatively to the "castellum," must also -be borne in mind. - -[978] "[Rex] in _turri_ de Bristou captivus ponitur.... [Imperatrix] -obsedit _turrim_ Wintonensis episcopi.... Robertus frater Imperatricis -in cujus _turri_ Rex captivus erat" (_Hen. Hunt._, p. 275). - -[979] "In turri Cenomannica" (_Annales Veteres_, 311). - -[980] The Tower of Rouen, we have seen (p. 334), was styled "arx regia." - -[981] A fine "motte" is visible from the line between Calais and Paris -(on the right); another, as I think, stood on the Lea, between Bow -Bridge and the "Old Ford," and is (or was) well seen from the Great -Eastern line. - -[982] _Archæological Journal_, xx. 205-223 (1863). - -[983] _Anglia Sacra_ (ed. Wharton), i. 337, 338. - -[984] _Gentleman's Magazine_, N.S., xv. 260. - -[985] _Mediæval Military Architecture_, ii. 421, 422. - -[986] _William Rufus_, i. 53, 54. - -[987] "Egregia turris" is the expression of Gervase (_Actus -Pontificum_). - -[988] The "castrum lapideum" (compare the three "castra lapidea" erected -for the blockade of Montreuil in 1149) is so styled to distinguish it -from the "castrum ligneum," which occurs so often, and which Mr. Freeman -so persistently renders "tower." - -[989] _Mediæval Military Architecture_, ii. 419. - -[990] _Journ. Brit. Arch. Ass._, xxxi., 471, 472. - -[991] Both writers, also, mistake a general exemption from the _trinoda -necessitas_ for a special allusion to Rochester keep. - -[992] _Mediæval Military Architecture_, ii. 421. - -[993] Mr. J. R. Boyle has shown that nearly £1000 was spent upon it -between 1172 and 1177, when it was, therefore, in course of erection. - -[994] _Mediæval Military Architecture_, i. 186. - -[995] _Norman Conquest_, iii. 182. - -[996] _Histoire du Château d'Arques_, by A. Deville, pp. x., 412 -(Rouen). - -[997] Ed. Howlett, p. 106. - -[998] _Cours d'antiquités monumentales_ (1835), v. 227, 228. - -[999] Colchester, in _Archæologia_, to which he refers, was attributed -to Edward the Elder, and Rochester was, of course, as yet, believed to -be the work of Gundulf. - -[1000] Compare Professor Freeman on Falaise: "More probably, I think, of -the twelfth than of the eleventh [century]" (_Norm. Conq._, ii. 175). - -[1001] _Château d'Arques_, pp. 307-312. - -[1002] _Ibid._, pp. 48, 267. - -[1003] Compare the "castrum in cacumine ipsius montis condidit" at -Arques with the "castellum novum super flumen Tyne condidit" at -Newcastle. - -[1004] Compare, on this point, the acute criticism of Dr. Bruce -(repeated by Mr. Freeman) that "Wace (v. 12,628) speaks of the horse of -William Fitz Osbern [in 1066] as 'all covered with iron,' whereas in the -[Bayeux] Tapestry 'not a single horse is equipped in steel armour; and -if we refer to the authors who lived at that period, we shall find that -not one of them mentions any defensive covering for the horse.'" Compare -also the expression of William of Malmesbury, who lived and wrote under -the tower-building king, that the Norman barons took advantage of the -Conqueror's minority "_turres_ agere," these being the structures with -the building of which the writer was most familiar. - -[1005] "A flight of steps, beginning upon the north face, passing by a -doorway through its most westerly buttress, and which then, turning, is -continued along the west face" (_M. M. A._, i. 188). Cf. Deville (p. -298), and the plan of 1708 (_ibid._, Pl. XII.). - -[1006] _M. M. A._, i. 188, ii. 432. - -[1007] Report of 1708 (_Deville_, p. 294). - -[1008] It is only right to mention that, according to the _Academy_, -"Mr. Clark has long been recognized as the first living authority on the -subject of castellated architecture;" that, in the opinion of the -_Athenæum_, all those "who in future touch the subject may safely rely -on Mr. Clark;" that his is "a masterly history of mediæval military -architecture" (_Saturday Review_); and that, according to _Notes and -Queries_, "no other Englishman knows so much of our old military -architecture as Mr. Clark." - - - - - APPENDIX P. - THE EARLY ADMINISTRATION OF LONDON. - (See p. 151.) - - -The new light which is thrown by the charters granted to Geoffrey upon a -subject so interesting and so obscure as the government and _status_ of -London during the Norman period requires, for its full appreciation, -detailed and separate treatment. But, before advancing my own -conclusions, it is absolutely needful to dispose of that singular -accretion of error which has grown, by gradual degrees, around the -recorded facts.[1009] - -The cardinal error has been the supposition that when the citizens of -London, under Henry I., were given Middlesex _ad firmam_, the -"Middlesex" in question was only Middlesex _exclusive of London_. The -actual words of the charter are these:— - - "Sciatis me concessisse civibus meis London[iarum], tenendum Middlesex - ad firmam pro ccc libris ad compotum, ipsis et hæredibus suis de me et - hæredibus meis ita quod ipsi cives ponent vicecomitem qualem voluerint - de se ipsis; et justitiarium qualem voluerint de se ipsis, ad - custodiendum placita coronæ meæ et eadem placitanda, et nullus alius - erit justitiarius super ipsos homines London[iarum]." - -Now, it is absolutely certain that the shrievalty (_vicecomitatus_) and -the ferm (_firma_) mentioned in this passage are the shrievalty and the -ferm not of Middlesex apart from London, nor of London apart from -Middlesex, but of "London _and_ Middlesex." For there is never, from the -first, but one ferm. It is here called the ferm of "Middlesex;" in the -almost contemporary Pipe-Roll (31 Hen. I.) it is called the ferm of -"London" (there being no ferm of Middlesex mentioned); and Geoffrey's -charters clinch the matter. For while Stephen grants him "the -shrievalties of London and Middlesex,"[1010] the Empress, in her turn, -grants him "the shrievalty of London and Middlesex."[1011] Further, the -Pipe-Rolls of Henry II. describe this same _firma_ both as the ferm of -"London," and as that of "London and Middlesex;" while in the Roll of 8 -Ric. I. we find the phrase, "de veteri firma _Comitat'_ Lond' et -Middelsexa." Lastly, the charter of Henry III. grants to the citizens of -London— - - "Vicecomitatum Londoniæ et de Middelsexia, cum omnibus rebus et - consuetudinibus quæ pertinent ad predictum Vicecomitatum, infra - civitatem et extra per terras et aquas; ... Reddendo inde annuatim ... - trescentas libras sterlingorum blancorum.[1012] - -And so, to this day, the shrievalty is that of "London and -Middlesex."[1013] - -The royal writs and charters hear the same witness. When they are -directed to the local authorities, it is to those of "London and -Middlesex," or of "London," or of "Middlesex." The three are, for all -purposes, used as equivalent terms. There was never, as I have said, but -one ferm, and never but one shrievalty.[1014] - -Now, this completely disposes of the view that the "Middlesex" of -Henry I.'s charter was Middlesex _apart from London_. This prevalent but -erroneous assumption has proved the cause of much confusion and -misunderstanding of the facts of the case. It has nowhere, perhaps, been -assigned such prominence as in that account of London by Mr. Loftie -which may derive authority in the eyes of some from the editorial -_imprimatur_ of Mr. Freeman.[1015] We there read as follows:— - - "It may be as well, before we proceed, to remember one thing. That - London is not in Middlesex, that it never was in Middlesex, ... is a - fact of which we have to be constantly reminded" (p. 125). - -From this interpretation of the "Middlesex" of the charter, it, of -course, followed that the writer took the _firma_ of £300 to be paid in -respect of Middlesex _exclusive of London_.[1016] We need not wonder, -therefore, that to him the grant is difficult to understand. Here are -his comments on its terms:— - - "If we could estimate the reasons which led to this grant with any - degree of certainty, we should understand better what the citizens - expected to gain by it besides rights of jurisdiction.... The meaning - and nature of the grant are subjects of which we should like to know - more. But here we can obtain little help from books ... and we may - inquire in vain for a definition of the position and duties of the - sheriff who acts for the citizens in their subject county.... There - must have been advantages to accrue from the payment by London of £300 - a year, a sum which, small as it seems to us, was a heavy tax in those - days. We may be sure the willing citizens expected to obtain - correspondingly valuable liberties" (pp. 121-123). - -Then follow various conjectures, all of them necessarily wide of the -mark. And as with the ferm, so with the sheriff. Mr. Loftie, taking the -sheriff (_vicecomes_) in question to be a sheriff of Middlesex exclusive -of London (which he hence terms a "subject county"), is of necessity -baffled by the charter. For by it the citizens are empowered to appoint -(_a_) a "vicecomes," (_b_) a "justitiarius." As the "vicecomes," -according to his view, had nothing to do with the City itself, Mr. -Loftie has to account for "the omission of any reference to the -portreeve in the charter," his assumption being that the City itself was -at this time governed by a portreeve. Though his views are obscurely -expressed, his solutions of the problem are as follows. In his larger -work he dismisses the supposition that the "justitiarius" of the charter -was the "chief magistrate" of the City, _i.e._ the portreeve, because -the citizens must have been "already" entitled to elect that officer. -Yet in his later work, with equal confidence, he tells us that by -"justitiarius" the portreeve is "evidently intended." The fact is that -he is really opposing two different suppositions; the one that Henry -granted by his charter the right to elect a portreeve, the other that he -did not grant it, but retained the appointment in his hands. Mr. Loftie -first denies the former, and then, in his later work, asserts the former -to deny the latter. But really his language is so confused that it is -doubtful whether he realized himself the contradictory drift of his two -arguments, both based on the same assumption, which "it is manifestly -absurd," we learn, to dispute.[1017] And the strange part of the -business is this, What is the "proof" that Mr. Loftie offers for the -later of his two hypotheses? If the "trial" to which he refers had ever -taken place at all, and, still more, if it had taken place before 1115, -the fact would have an important bearing. But, in the first place, he -has wrongly assigned to the record too early a date, and, in the second, -it represents Gilbert Prutfot, not as a judge, but as a culprit. The -expression used is, "Terra quam Gillebertus Prutfot nobis -disfortiat."[1018] Now "defortiare" (or "disfortiare") is rendered by -Dr. Stubbs, in his _Select Charters_ (p. 518), "to deforce, to -dispossess by violence." We have here, therefore, an interesting, -because early, example of the legal offence of "deforcement," defined by -Johnson as "a withholding of lands and tenements by force from the right -owner." But the point to which I would call attention is that, even if -this writer were correct in his facts (which he is not), his "proof" -that (a _vicecomes_ and a _justitiarius_ being mentioned in the charter) -the justitiarius was "evidently" the portreeve consists in the fact that -a _vicecomes_ had "given judgment" in a trial, and being styled -_vicecomes_, was the portreeve! That is to say, the _justitiarius_ must -have been the portreeve _because_ the portreeve was styled (_not_ -"justitiarius," but, on the contrary,) _vicecomes_. Such is actually his -argument.[1019] - -I have dwelt thus fully on these observations, because they illustrate -the hopeless wandering which is the inevitable result of the adoption of -the above fundamental error. - -We have a curiously close parallel to this use of "London and Middlesex" -in the expression "turris et castellum," on which I have elsewhere -dwelt.[1020] Just as the relative importance of the "Tower" of London to -the encircling "castle" at its feet led to the term "turris" alone being -used to describe the two,—while, conversely, in the provinces, -"castellum" was the term adopted,—so did the relative greatness of -London to the county that lay around its walls lead to the occasional -use of "London" as a term descriptive of both together, a usage -impossible in the provinces. Whether a "turris et castellum" were -destined to become known as a "turris" or a "castellum," whether -"Londonia et Middelsex" were described as "Londonia" merely, or as -"Middlesex," in each case the entity is the same. For fiscal, and -therefore for our purposes, "London and Middlesex," under whatever name, -remain one and indivisible. - -The special value of the charters granted to Geoffrey de Mandeville lies -not so much in their complete confirmation of the view that the _firma_ -of "Middlesex" was that of "London _and_ Middlesex" (for that would be -evident without them), as in their proof of the fact, so strangely -overlooked, that this connection was at least as old as the days of -William the Conqueror, and in their treatment of Middlesex (including -London) as an ordinary county like Essex or Herts, "farmed" in precisely -the same way. The _firma_ of Herts was £60, of Essex £300, and of -Middlesex (because containing London) £300 also. - -But now let us leave our record evidence and turn to geography and to -common sense. What must have always been the salient feature which -distinguished Middlesex internally from every other county? Obviously, -that the shire was abnormally small, and its chief town abnormally -large. Nor was it a mere matter of size, but, still more, of comparative -wealth. This is illustrated by the taxation recorded in the Pipe-Roll of -1130. Unlike the _firma_, the taxes were raised, as elsewhere, from the -town and the shire respectively, the town contributing an _auxilium_, -and the shire, without the walls, a Danegeld. We thus learn that London -paid a sum about half as large again as that raised from the rest of the -shire.[1021] The normal relation of the "shire" to the "port" was -accordingly here reversed, and so would be also, in consequence, that of -the shire-reeve to the portreeve. Where, as usual, the "port" formed but -a small item in the _corpus comitatus_, it was possible to sever it from -the rest of the county, to place it _extra firmam_, and to give it a -reeve who should stand towards it in the same relation as the -shire-reeve to the shire, and would therefore be termed the "portreeve." -But to have done this in the case of Middlesex would have been to -reverse the nature of things, to place a mere "portreeve" in a position -greater than that of the "shire-reeve" himself. This is why that change -which, in the provinces, was the aim of every rising town, never took -place in the case of London, though the greatest town of all. I say that -it "never took place," for, as we have seen, the city of London was -never severed from the rest of the shire. As far back as we can trace -them, they are found one and indivisible. - -What, then, was the alternative? Simply this. The "reeve," who, in the -case of a normal county, took his title from the "shire" and not from -the "port," took it, in the abnormal case of Middlesex, from the "port" -and not from the "shire." In each case both "port" and "shire" were -alike within his jurisdiction; in each case he took his style from the -most important part of that jurisdiction. Such is the original solution -I offer for this most interesting problem, and I claim that its -acceptance will explain everything, will harmonize with all existing -_data_, and will dispose of difficulties which, hitherto, it has been -impossible to surmount. - -My contention is, briefly, that the Norman _vicecomes_ of "London," or -"Middlesex," or "London and Middlesex" was simply the successor, in that -office, of the Anglo-Saxon "portreeve." With the sphere of the -_vicecomes_ I have already dealt, and though we are not in a position -similarly to prove the sphere of the Anglo-Saxon "portreeve," I might -appeal to the belief of Mr. Loftie himself that "Ulf the Sheriff of -Middlesex is identical with Ulf the Portreeve of London"[1022] (though -he adds, contrary to my contention, that "as yet their official -connection was only that of neighbourhood"),[1023] and that Ansgar, -though one of the "portreeves" (p. 24); "was Sheriff of Middlesex for a -time there can be no doubt" (p. 127).[1024] But I would rather appeal to -the vital fact that the shire-reeve and the portreeve are, so far I -know, never mentioned together, and that writs are directed to a -portreeve or to a shire-reeve,[1025] but never to both. Specially would -I insist upon the indisputable circumstance that such writs as were -addressed to the "portreeve" by the Anglo-Saxon kings, were addressed to -the _vicecomes_ by the Norman, and that the turning-point is seen under -the Conqueror himself, whose Anglo-Saxon charter is addressed to the -"bisceop" and the "portirefan," and whose Latin writs are, similarly, -addressed to the _episcopus_ and the _vicecomes_. More convincing -evidence it would not be easy to find. - -The acceptance of this view will at once dispose of the alleged -"disappearance of the portreeve," with the difficulties it has always -presented, and the conjectures to which it has given rise.[1026] The -style of the "portreeve" indeed disappears, but his office does not. In -the person of the Norman _vicecomes_, it preserves an unbroken -existence. Geoffrey de Mandeville steps, as sheriff, into the shoes of -Ansgar the portreeve.[1027] - -The problem as to what became of the portreeve, a problem which has -exercised so many minds, sprang from the delusion that in the Norman -period the City must have had a portreeve for governor independent of -the Sheriff of Middlesex. I term this an undoubted "delusion," because I -have already made it clear that the City was part of the sheriff's -jurisdiction and contributed its share to his _firma_. There was, -therefore, no room for an independent portreeve; nor indeed does a -"portreeve" of London, I believe, ever occur after the Conqueror's -charter. - -But we must here glance at the contrary view set forth by Mr. Loftie:— - - "The succession of portreeves is uninterrupted. We have the names of - some of them in the records of the Exchequer. Occasionally two or - three, once as many as five, came to answer for the City and pay the - £300 which was the farm of Middlesex. In 1129, a few years only after - the retirement of Orgar and his companions, we read of 'quatuor - vicecomites' as attending for London. The following year we hear of a - single 'camerarius.' The 'Hugh Buche' of Stowe may be identified with - the Hugo de Bock of the St. Paul's documents, and his 'Richard de Par' - with Richard the younger, the chamberlain. 'Par' is probably a - misreading for Parvus contracted. In the reign of Stephen two members - of the Buckerel family hold office, and we have Fulcred and Robert, who - were related to each other. Another early portreeve was Wluardus, who - attends at the Exchequer in 1138, and who continued to be an alderman - thirty years later" (_Historic Towns: London_, p. 34). - -Where are "the records of the Exchequer" from which we learn all this? -The only Pipe-Roll of the period is that of 1130, in which "the farm of -Middlesex" is not £300, but a much larger sum, a fact which, as we shall -find, has a most important bearing. The "quatuor vicecomites" appear "as -attending," not in 1129, but in 1130. The "camerarius" does not (and -could not) appear "in the following year," but, on the contrary, -belonged to a preceding one ("Willelmus _qui fuit_ camerarius de -_veteribus_ debitis"); nor does he account for the _firma_. The _firma_ -was always accounted for by "vicecomites," and not (as implied on p. -108) by a chamberlain, or by a "prefect." The "Hugh Buche" is given in -Mr. Loftie's former work (p. 98) as "Hugh de Buch." He is meant (as even -Foss perceived) for the well-known Hugh de Bocland (the minister of -Henry I.), who cannot be shown to have been a "portreeve." No "Hugo de -Bock" occurs in the St. Paul's documents, which only mention "Hugo de -Bochelanda" and "Hugo de Bock[elanda]," the latter imperfection being -the source of the error. "Richard, the younger, chamberlain" only occurs -in these documents a century later (1204-1215), and "the younger," I -presume, there translates "juvenis," and not "parvus." It is, moreover, -quite certain that Stowe's "de Par" was not "a misreading for 'parvus' -contracted," but for "delpare," as may easily be ascertained. No member -of the Bucherel family occurs in these documents as holding office "in -the reign of Stephen," though some do in the next century. Fulcred was -not a "portreeve," but a "chamberlain;" and Robert, Fulcred's brother, -was neither one nor the other. But what are we to say to "Wluardus" the -portreeve, "who attends at the Exchequer in 1138"? Where are the -"records of the Exchequer for 1138"? They are known to Mr. Loftie -alone.[1028] Moreover, his identification, here, of the _vicecomes_ with -the portreeve is in direct antagonism to the principle laid down just -before (p. 29), that, on the contrary, it was the _justitiarius_ who -should "evidently" be identified with the portreeve (see p. 350, -_supra_). - -Perhaps the assumption of a portreeve's existence springs from -forgetfulness or misapprehension of the condition of London at the time. -Its corporate unity, we must always remember, had not yet been -developed. As Dr. Stubbs so truly observes, London was only - - "a bundle of communities, townships, parishes, and lordships, of which - each has its own constitution."[1029] - -I cannot indeed agree with him in his view that the result of the -charter of Henry I. was to replace this older system by a new "shire -organization."[1030] For my contention is that our great historian not -only misdates the charter in question, but also misunderstands it -(though not so seriously as others), and that it made no difference in -the "organization" at all. But I would cordially endorse these his -words:— - - "No new incorporation is bestowed: the churches, the barons, the - citizens retain their ancient customs; the churches their sokens, the - barons their manors, the citizens their township organization, and - possibly their guilds. The municipal unity which they possess is of the - same sort as that of the county and hundred."[1031] - -And he further observes that the City "clearly was organized under a -sheriff like any other shire." Thus the local government of the day was -to be found in the petty courts of these various "communities," and not -in any central corporation. The only centralizing element was the -sheriff, and his office was not so much to "govern," as to satisfy the -financial claims of the Crown in ferm, taxes, and profits of -jurisdiction. There was, of course, the general "folkmote" over which, -with the bishop, he would preside, but the true corporate organisms were -those of the several communities. The sheriff and the folkmote could no -more mould these self-governing bodies into one coherent whole, than -they could, or did, accomplish this in the case of an ordinary shire. -Here we have a somewhat curious parallel between such a polity as is -here described and that of the present metropolis outside the City. -There, too, we have the local communities, with their quasi-independent -vestries, etc., and the Metropolitan Board of Works is a substitute for -their "folkmote" or "shiremote."[1032] But, to revert to the days of -Henry I., the Anglo-Saxon system of government, its strength varying in -intension conversely with its sphere in extension, possessed the -toughest vitality in its lowest and simplest forms. Thus the original -territorial system might never have led to a corporate unity. But what -the sheriff and the folkmote could not accomplish, the mayor and the -_communa_ could and did. The territorial arrangement was overthrown by -the rising power of commerce. To quote once more from Dr. Stubbs's work: - - "The establishment of the corporate character of the City under a mayor - marks the victory of the communal principle over the more ancient shire - organization.... It also marks the triumph of the mercantile over the - aristocratic element."[1033] - -At the risk of being tedious I would now repeat the view I have advanced -on the shrievalty, because the point is of such paramount importance -that it cannot be expressed too clearly. The great illustrative value of -Geoffrey's charters is this. They prove, in the first place, that -Middlesex (inclusive of London) was treated financially on the same -footing as Essex or Herts or any other shire; and in the second they -give us that all-important information, the amount of the _firma_ for -each of these counties at the close of the eleventh century. All we have -to do in the case of Middlesex is to keep steadily in view its _firma_ -of £300. Sometimes described as the _firma_ of "London," sometimes "of -Middlesex," and sometimes "of London and Middlesex," its identity never -changes; it is always, and beyond the shadow of question, the _firma_ of -Middlesex inclusive of London. The history of this ancient payment -reveals a persistent endeavour of the Crown to increase its amount, an -endeavour which was eventually foiled. Under the first Geoffrey de -Mandeville (William I. and William II.), it was £300. Nearly doubled by -Henry I., it was yet reduced to £300 by his charter to the citizens of -London. In the succeeding reign, the second Geoffrey eventually secured -it from both claimants at the same low figure (£300). Under Henry II., -as the Pipe-Rolls show, it was again raised as under Henry I. John, we -shall find, reduced it again to the original £300, and the reduction was -confirmed by his successor on his assuming the reins of power. For we -find a charter of Henry III. conceding to the citizens of London -(February 11, 1227)— - - "Vicecomitatum Londoniæ et de Middlesexiâ cum omnibus rebus et - consuetudinibus quæ pertinent ad prædictum Vicecomitatum, infra - Civitatem et extra per terras et aquas; Habendum et tenendum eis et - heredibus suis de nobis et heredibus nostris; Reddendo inde annuatim - nobis et heredibus nostris _trescentas libras_ sterlingorum - blancorum.... Hanc vero concessionem et confirmationem fecimus Civibus - Londoniæ propter emendationem ejusdem Civitatis, et _quia antiquitus - consuevit esse ad firmam pro trecentis libris_." - -The adhesion of the City to Simon de Montfort resulted in the forfeiture -of its rights, and when, in 1270, the citizens were restored to favour, -on payment of heavy sums to the king and to his son, they received -permission "to have two sheriffs of their own who should hold the -shrievalty of the City and Middlesex as they used to have." But the -_firma_ was raised from £300 to £400 a year.[1034] Finally, on the -accession of Edward III. (March 9, 1326/7), the _firma_ was reduced to -the original sum of £300 a year, at which figure, Mr. Loftie says, "it -has remained ever since."[1035] - -This one _firma_, of which the history has here been traced, represents -one _corpus comitatus_, namely, Middlesex inclusive of London.[1036] -From this conclusion there is no escape. - -Hence the _firmarii_ of this _corpus comitatus_ were from the first the -_firmarii_ (that is, the sheriffs) of Middlesex inclusive of London. -This, similarly, is beyond dispute. As with the _firma_ so with the -sheriffs. Whether described as "of London," or "of Middlesex," or "of -London and Middlesex," they are, from the first, the sheriffs of -Middlesex inclusive of London. - -This conclusion throws a new light on the charter by which Henry I. -granted to the citizens of London Middlesex (_i.e._ Middlesex inclusive -of London) at farm. Broadly speaking, the transaction in question may be -regarded in this aspect. Instead of leasing the _corpus comitatus_ to -any one individual for a year, or for a term of years, the king leased -it to the citizens as a body, leased it, moreover, in perpetuity, and at -the low original _firma_ of £300 a year. The change effected was simply -that which was involved in placing the citizens, as a body, in the shoes -of the Sheriff "of London and Middlesex."[1037] - -The only distinction between this lease and one to a private individual -lies in the corporate character of the lessee, and in the consequent -provision for the election of a representative of that corporate body: -"Ita quod ipsi cives ponent vicecomites qualem voluerint de seipsis." - -It would seem that under the _régime_ adopted by Henry I., the financial -exactions of which a glimpse is afforded us in the solitary Pipe-Roll of -his reign, included the leasing of the counties, etc. (_i.e._ of the -financial rights of the Crown in them), at the highest rate possible. -This was effected either by adding to the annual _firma_, a sum "de -cremento," or by exacting from the _firmarius_, over and above his -_firma_, a payment "de gersoma" for his lease. Where the lease was -offered for open competition it would be worth the while of the would-be -_firmarius_ to offer a large payment "de gersoma" for his lease, if the -_firma_ was a low one. But if the _firma_ was a high one, he would not -offer much for his bargain. In the case of Oxfordshire we find the -sheriff paying no less than four hundred marks "de gersoma, pro comitatu -habendo."[1038] But in Berkshire the payment "de gersoma" would seem to -have been considerably less.[1039] Sometimes the county (or group of -counties) was leased for a specified term of years. Thus "Maenfininus" -had taken a lease of Bucks. and Beds. for four years,[1040] for which, -seemingly, he paid but a trifling sum "de gersoma," while William de -Eynsford (Æinesford) paid a hundred marks for a five years' lease of -Essex and Herts.[1041] Now, the fact that William de Eynsford was not an -Essex but a Kentish landowner obviously suggests that in taking this -lease he was actuated by speculative motives. It is, indeed, an admitted -fact that the Norman gentry, in their greed for gain, were by no means -above indulging in speculations of the kind. But when we make the -interesting discovery that William de Eynsford, in this same reign, had -acted as Sheriff of London,[1042] may we not infer that, there also, he -had indulged in a similar speculation? That the shrievalty of London -(_i.e._ London and Middlesex) was purchased by payments "de gersoma" is -a matter, itself, not of inference, but of fact. Fulcred fitz Walter is -debited in the Pipe-Rolls with a sum of "cxx marcas argenti de Gersoma -pro Vicecomitatu Londoniæ."[1043] - -The _firmarius_ who had succeeded in obtaining a lease would have to -recoup himself, of course, from his receipts the amount of the actual -"firma" _plus_ his payment "de gersoma," before he could derive for -himself any profit whatever from the transaction. This implied that he -had closely to shear the flock committed to his charge. If he was a mere -speculator, unconnected with his sphere of operations, he would have no -scruple in doing this, and would resort to every means of extortion. -What those means were it is now difficult to tell, for, obscure as the -financial system of the Norman period may be, it is clear that just as -the _rotulus exactorius_ recorded the amounts to which the king was -entitled from the _firmarii_ of the various counties, so these -_firmarii_, in their turn, were entitled to sums of ostensibly fixed -amount from the various constituents of their counties' "corpora." -Domesday, however, while recording these sums, shows us, in many -remarkable cases, a larger "redditus" being paid than that which was -strictly due. The fact is that we are, and must be, to a great extent, -in the dark as to the fixity of these ostensibly stereotyped payments. -That the remarkable rise in the annual _firmæ_ exacted from the towns -which, Domesday shows us, had taken place since, and consequent on, the -Conquest would seem to imply that these _firmæ_, under the loose -_régime_ of the old system, had been allowed to remain so long unaltered -that they had become antiquated and unduly low. In any case the -Conqueror raised them sharply, probably according to his estimate of the -financial capacity of the town. And this step would, of course, involve -a rise in the total of the _firma_ exacted from the _corpus comitatus_. -The precedent which his father had thus set was probably followed by -Henry I., who appears to have exacted, systematically, the uttermost -farthing. It was probably, however, to the oppressive use of the -"placita" included in the "firma comitatus" that the sheriffs mainly -trusted to increase their receipts. - -But whatever may have been the means of extortion possessed by the -sheriffs in the towns within their rule,[1044] and exercised by them to -recoup themselves for the increased demands of the Crown, we know that -such means there must have been, or it would not have been worth the -while of the towns to offer considerable sums for the privilege of -paying their _firmæ_ to the Crown directly, instead of through the -sheriffs.[1045] - -I would now institute a comparison between the cases of Lincoln and of -London. In both cases the city formed part of the _corpus comitatus_; in -both, therefore, its _firma_ was included in the total ferm of the -shire. Lincoln was at this time one of the largest and wealthiest towns -in the country. Its citizens evidently had reason to complain of the -exactions of the sheriff of the shire. London, we infer, was in the same -plight. Both cities were, accordingly, anxious to exclude the financial -intervention of the sheriff between themselves and the Crown. How was -this end to be attained? It was attained in two different ways varying -with the circumstances of the two cases. London was considerably larger -than Lincoln, and Middlesex infinitely smaller than Lincolnshire. Thus -while the _firma_ of Lincoln represented less than a fifth of the ferm -of the shire,[1046] that of London would, of course, constitute the bulk -of the ferm of Middlesex. Lincoln, therefore, would only seek to sever -itself financially from the shire; London, on the contrary, would -endeavour to exclude, still more effectually, the sheriff, by itself -boldly stepping into the sheriff's shoes. The action of the citizens of -Lincoln is revealed to us by the Roll of 1130:— - - "Burgenses Lincolie reddunt compotum de cc marcis argenti et iiij - marcis auri ut teneant ciuitatem de Rege in capite" (p. 114). - -The same Roll is witness to that of the citizens of London:— - - "Homines Londonie reddunt compotum de c marcis argenti ut habeant - Vic[ecomitem?] ad electionem suam" (p. 148). - -I contend that these two passages ought to be read together. No one -appears to have observed the fact that the sequel to the above Lincoln -entry is to be found in the Pipe-Roll of 1157 (3 Hen. II.). We there -find £140 deducted from the ferm of the shire in consideration of the -severance of the city from the _corpus comitatus_ ("Et in Civitate -Lincol[nie] CXL libræ blancæ"). But we further find the citizens of -Lincoln, in accounting for their _firma_ to the Crown direct, accounting -not for £140, but for £180. It must, consequently, have been worth their -while to offer the Crown a sum equivalent to about a year's rental for -the privilege of paying it £180 direct rather than £140 through the -sheriff.[1047] Such figures are eloquent as to the extortions from which -they had suffered. The citizens of London, as I have said, set to work a -different way. They simply sought to lease the shrievalty of the shire -themselves. I can, on careful consideration, offer no other suggestion -than that the hundred marcs for which they account in the Roll of 1130, -represent the payment by which they secured a lease of the shrievalty -for the year 1129-1130, the shrievalty being held in that year by the -"quatuor vicecomites" of the Roll. I gather from the Roll that Fulcred -fitz Walter had been sheriff for 1128-29, and his payment "de gersoma" -is, I take it, represented in the case of the following year (1129-30) -by these hundred marks, the "quatuor vicecomites" themselves having paid -nothing "de gersoma." On this view, the citizens must have leased the -shrievalty themselves and then put in four of their fellows, as -representing them, to hold it. But, obviously, such a post was not one -to be coveted. To exact sufficient from their fellow-citizens wherewith -to meet the claims of the Crown would be a task neither popular nor -pleasant. Indeed, the fact of the citizens installing four "vicecomites" -may imply that they could not find any one man who would consent to fill -a post as thankless as that of the hapless _decurio_ in the provinces of -the Roman Empire, or of the chamberlain, in a later age, in the country -towns of England. Hence it may be that we find it thus placed in -commission. Hence, also, the eagerness of these _vicecomites_ to be quit -of office, as shown by their payment, for that privilege, of two marcs -of gold apiece.[1048] It may, however, be frankly confessed that the -nature of this payment is not so clear as could be wished. Judging from -the very ancient practice with regard to municipal offices, one would -have thought that such payments would probably have been made to their -fellow-citizens who had thrust on them the office rather than to the -Crown. Moreover, if their year of office was over, and the city's lease -at an end, one would have thought they would be freed from office in the -ordinary course of things. The only explanation, perhaps, that suggests -itself is that they purchased from the Crown an exemption from serving -again even though their fellow-citizens should again elect them to -office.[1049] But I leave the point in doubt. - -The hypothesis, it will be seen, that I have here advanced is that the -citizens leased the shrievalty (so far as we know, for the first time) -for the year 1129-30. We have the names of those who held the shrievalty -at various periods in the course of the reign, before this year, but -there is no evidence that, throughout this period, it was ever leased to -the citizens. The important question which now arises is this: How does -this view affect the charter granted to the citizens by Henry I.? - -We have first to consider the date to which the charter should be -assigned. Mr. Loftie characteristically observes that Rymer, "from the -names appended to it or some other evidence, dates it in 1101."[1050] As -a matter of fact, Rymer assigns no year to it; nor, indeed, did Rymer -himself even include it in his work. In the modern enlarged edition of -that work the charter is printed, but without a date, nor was it till -1885 that in the Record Office _Syllabus_, begun by Sir T. D. Hardy, the -date 1101 was assigned to it.[1051] That date is possibly to be traced -to Northouck's _History of London_ (1773), in which the commencement of -Henry's reign is suggested as a probable period (p. 27). This view is -set forth also in a modern work upon the subject.[1052] It is not often -that we meet with a charter so difficult to date. The _formula_ of -address, as it includes justices, points, according to my own theory, to -a late period in the reign, as also does the differentiation between the -justice and the sheriff. And the witnesses do the same. But there is, -unfortunately, no witness of sufficient prominence to enable us to fix -the date with precision. All that we can say is that such a name as that -of Hugh Bigod points to the period 1123-1135, and that, of the nine -witnesses named, seven or eight figure in the Pipe-Roll of 1130 (31 -Hen. I.). This would suggest that these two documents must be of about -the same date. Now, though we cannot trace the tenure of the shrievalty -before Michaelmas, 1128, from the Roll, there is, as I have said, no -sign that this charter had come into play. Nor is it easy to understand -how or why it could be withdrawn within a very few years of its grant. -In short, for this view there is not a scrap of evidence; against it, is -all probability. If, on the contrary, we adopt the hypothesis which I am -now going to advance, namely, that the charter was later than the -Pipe-Roll, the difficulties all vanish. By this view, the lease for a -year, to which the Pipe-Roll bears witness, would be succeeded by a -permanent arrangement, that lease of the ferm in perpetuity, which we -find recorded in the charter. - -It is, indeed, evident that the contrary view rests solely on the guess -at "1101," or on the assumption of Dr. Stubbs that the charter was -earlier than the Pipe-Roll. Mr. Freeman and others have merely followed -him. Dr. Stubbs writes thus:— - - "Between the date of Henry's charter and that of the great Pipe-Roll, - some changes in the organization of the City must have taken place. In - 1130 there were four sheriffs or vicecomites, who jointly account for - the ferm of London, instead of the one mentioned in the charter; and - part of the account is rendered by a chamberlain of the City. The right - to appoint the sheriffs has been somehow withdrawn, for the citizens - pay a hundred marks of silver that they may have a sheriff of their own - choice," etc., etc.[1053] - -But our great historian nowhere tells us what he considers "the date of -Henry's charter" to have been. If that date was subsequent to the -Pipe-Roll, the whole of his argument falls to the ground. - -The substitution of four sheriffs for one, to which Dr. Stubbs alludes, -is a matter of slight consequence, for the number of the "vicecomites" -varies throughout. As a matter of fact, the abbreviated forms leave us, -as in the Pipe-Roll of 1130, doubtful whether we ought to read -"vicecomite_m_" or "vicecomite_s_," and even if the former is the one -intended, we know, both in this and other cases, that there was nothing -unusual in putting the office in commission between two or more. As to -the chamberlain, he does not figure in connection with the _firma_, with -which alone we are here concerned. But, oddly enough, Dr. Stubbs has -overlooked the really important point, namely, that the _firma_ is not -£300, as fixed by the charter, but over £500.[1054] This increases the -discrepancy on which Dr. Stubbs lays stress. The most natural inference -from this fact is that, as on several later occasions, the Crown had -greatly raised the _firma_ (which had been under the Conqueror £300), -and that the citizens now, by a heavy payment, secured its reduction to -the original figure. Thus, on my hypothesis that the charter was granted -between 1130 and 1135, the Crown must have been tempted, by the offer of -an enormous sum down, to grant (1) a lease in perpetuity, (2) a -reduction of the fee-farm rent ("firma") to £300 a year. As the sum to -which the _firma_ had been raised by the king, together with the annual -_gersoma_, amounted to some £600 a year, such a reduction can only have -been purchased by a large payment in ready money. - -It was, of course, by such means as these that Henry accumulated the -vast "hoard" that the treasury held at his death. He may not improbably -in collecting this wealth have kept in view what appears to have been -the supreme aim of his closing years, namely, the securing of the -succession to his heirs. This was to prove the means by which their -claims should be supported. It would, perhaps, be refining too much to -suggest that he hoped by this charter to attach the citizens to the -interests of his line, on whom alone it could be binding. In any case -his efforts were notoriously vain, for London headed throughout the -opposition to the claims of his heirs. I cannot but think that his -financial system had much to do with this result, and that, as with the -Hebrews at the death of Solomon, the citizens of London bethought them -only of his "grievous service" and his "heavy yoke," as when they met -the demand of his daughter for an enormous sum of money[1055] by bluntly -requesting a return to the system of Edward the Confessor.[1056] - -In any case the concessions in Henry's charter were wholly ignored both -by Stephen and by the Empress, when they granted in turn to the Earl of -Essex the shrievalty of London and Middlesex (1141-42). - -A fresh and important point must, however, now be raised. What was the -attitude of Henry II. towards his grandfather's charter? Of our two -latest writers on the subject, Mr. Loftie tells us that - - "Henry II. was too astute a ruler not to put himself at once on a good - footing with the citizens. One of his first acts was to confirm the - Great Charter of his grandfather."[1057] - -Miss Norgate similarly asserts that "the charter granted by Henry II. to -the citizens, some time before the end of 1158, is simply a confirmation -of his grandfather's."[1058] Such, indeed, would seem to be the accepted -belief. Yet, when we compare the two documents, we find that the special -concessions with which I am here dealing, and which form the opening -clauses of the charter of Henry I., are actually omitted altogether in -that of Henry II.![1059] This leads us to examine the rest of the latter -document. To facilitate this process I have here arranged the two -charters side by side, and divided their contents into numbered clauses, -italicizing the points of difference. - - HENRY I. - - (1) Cives non placitabunt extra muros civitatis pro ullo placito. - - (2) Sint quieti _de schot et de loth de Danegildo et_ de murdro, et - nullus eorum faciat bellum. - - (3) Et si quis civium de placitis coronæ implacitatus fuerit, per - sacramentum quod judicatum fuerit in civitate, se disrationet homo - Londoniarum. - - (4) Et infra muros civitatis nullus hospitetur, neque de mea familia, - neque de alia, nisi alicui hospitium liberetur. - - (5) Et omnes homines Londoniarum sint quieti et liberi, et omnes res - eorum, et per totam Angliam _et per portus maris, de thelonio et - passagio_ et lestagio _et omnibus aliis consuetudinibus_. - - (6) Et ecclesiæ et barones et cives teneant et habeant bene et in pace - socnas suas cum omnibus consuetudinibus, ita quod hospites qui in - soccis suis hospitantur nulli dent consuetudines suas, nisi illi cujus - socca fuerit, vel ministro suo quem ibi posuerit. - - (7) Et homo Londoniarum non judicetur in misericordia pecuniæ nisi ad - suam _were_, scilicet ad c solidos, dico de placito quod ad pecuniam - pertineat. - - (8) Et amplius non sit miskenninga in hustenge, neque in folkesmote, - neque in aliis placitis infra civitatem; Et husteng sedeat semel in - hebdomada, videlicet die Lunæ. - - (9) Et terras suas _et wardemotum_ et debita civibus meis habere faciam - _infra civitatem et extra_. - - (10) Et de terris de quibus ad me clamaverint rectum eis tenebo lege - civitatis. - - (12) Et omnes debitores qui civibus debita debent eis reddant vel in - Londoniis se disrationent quod non debent. _Quod si reddere noluerint, - neque ad disrationandum venire, tunc cives quibus debita sua debent - capiant intra civitatem namia sua, vel de comitatu in quo manet qui - debitum debet._ - - (11) Et si quis thelonium vel consuetudinem a civibus Londoniarum - ceperit, _cives_ Londoniarum capiant de burgo vel de villa ubi - theloneum vel consuetudo capta fuit, quantum homo Londoniarum pro - theloneo dedit, et proinde de damno ceperit.[1072] - - (13) Et cives habeant fugationes suas ad fugandum sicut melius et - plenius habuerunt antecessores eorum, scilicet Chiltre et Middlesex et - Sureie. - - HENRY II. - - (1) Nullus eorum placitet extra muros civitatis Londoniarum[1060] de - ullo placito _præter placita de tenuris exterioribus, exceptis - monetariis et ministris meis_. - - (2) Concessi etiam eis quietanciam murdri, [_et_[1061]] _infra urbem et - Portsokna_,[1062] et quod nullus[1063] faciat bellum.[1064] - - (3) De placitis ad coronam [spectantibus[1065]] se possunt disrationare - secundum antiquam consuetudinem civitatis. - - (4) Infra muros nemo capiat hospitium per vim vel per liberationem - Marescalli. - - (5) Omnes cives Londoniarum[1066] sint quieti de theloneo et lestagio - per totam Angliam et per portum[1067] maris. - - (6) [This clause is wholly omitted.] - - (7) Nullus de misericordia pecuniæ judicetur nisi secundum legem - civitatis quam habuerunt tempore Henrici regis[1068] avi mei. - - (8) In civitate in nullo placito sit miskenninga; et quod Hustengus - semel tantum in hebdomada teneatur. - - (9) Terras suas _et tenuras et vadimonia_ et debita omnia juste - habeant, _quicunque eis debeat_. - - (10) De terris suis et tenuris _quæ infra urbem sunt_, rectum eis - teneatur secundum legem[1069] civitatis; et de omnibus debitis suis quæ - accomodata fuerint apud Londonias,[1070] et de vadimoniis ibidem - factis, placita [? sint] apud Londoniam.[1071] - - (11) Et si quis _in tota Anglia_ theloneum et consuetudinem ab - hominibus Londoniarum[1070] ceperit, _postquam ipse a recto defecerit, - Vicecomes_ Londoniarum[1070] namium inde _apud Londonias_[1070] capiat. - - (12) Habeant fugationes suas, ubicumque [1073]habuerunt tempore Regis - Henrici avi mei. - - (13) _Insuper etiam, ad emendationem civitatis, eis concessi quod[1074] - sint quieti de Brudtolle, et de Childewite, et de Yaresive,[1075] et de - Scotale; ita quod Vicecomes meus_ (sic) _London[iarum][1076] vel - aliquis alius ballivus Scotalla non faciat._ - -Before passing to a comparison of these charters, we must glance at the -question of texts. The charter of Henry I. is taken from the _Select -Charters_ of Dr. Stubbs, who has gone to the _Fœdera_ for his text -(which is taken from an Inspeximus of 5 Edw. IV.). That of Henry II. is -taken from the transcript in the _Liber Custumarum_ (collated with the -_Liber Rubeus_). Neither of these sources is by any means as pure as -could be wished. The names of the witnesses in both had always aroused -my suspicions,[1077] but the collation of the two charters has led to a -singular discovery. It will be noticed that in the charter of Henry I. -the citizens are guaranteed "terras _et wardemotum_ et debita sua." Now, -this is on the face of it an unmeaning combination. Why should the -wardmoot be thus sandwiched between the lands of the citizens and the -debts due to them? And what can be the meaning of confirming to them -their wardmoot (? wardmoots), when the hustings is only mentioned as an -infliction and the folkmoot as a medium of extortion? Yet, corrupt -though this passage, on the face of it, appears, our authorities have -risen at this unlucky word, if I may venture on the expression, like -pike. Dr. Stubbs, Professor Freeman, Miss Norgate, Mr. Green, Mr. -Loftie, Mr. Price, etc., etc., have all swallowed it without suspicion. -Historians, like doctors, may often differ, but truly "when they do -agree their unanimity is wonderful." Collation, however, fortunately -proves that "wardemotum" is nothing more than a gross misreading of -"vadimonia," a word which restores to the passage its sense by showing -that what Henry confirmed to the citizens was "the property mortgaged to -them, and the debts due to them."[1078] - -Having thus enforced the necessity for caution in arguing from the text -as it stands, I would urge that, with the exception of the avowed -addition at the close, the later charter has, in sundry details, the -aspect of a grudging confirmation, restricting rather than enlarging the -benefits conferred. This, however, is but a small matter in comparison -with its total omission of the main concession itself. This fact, so -strangely overlooked, coincides with the king's allusion to the sheriff -as "vicecomes _meus_" (no longer the citizens' sheriff),[1079] but -explains above all the circumstance, which would be quite inexplicable -without it, that the _firma_ is again, under Henry II., found to be not -£300, but over £500 a year. - -In 1164 (10 Hen. II.) the _firma_ of London, if I reckon it right, was, -as in 1130 (31 Hen. I.), about £520.[1080] In 1160 (6 Hen. II.) it was a -few pounds less,[1081] and in 1161 (7 Hen. II.) it was little, it would -seem, over £500.[1082] But in these calculations it is virtually -impossible to attain perfect accuracy, not only from the system of -keeping accounts partly in _libræ_ partly in _marcæ_, and partly in -money "blanched" partly in money "numero," but also from the fact that -the figures on the Pipe-Rolls are by no means so infallible as might be -supposed.[1083] - -Nor does the charter of Richard I. (April 23, 1194) make any change. It -merely confirms that of his father. But John, in addition to confirming -this (June 17, 1199), granted a supplementary charter (July 5, 1199)— - - "Sciatis nos concessisse et præsenti Charta nostra confirmasse civibus - Londoniarum Vicecomitatum Londoniarum et de Middelsexia, cum omnibus - rebus et consuetudinibus quæ pertinent ad prædictum Vicecomitatum ... - reddendo inde annuatim nobis et heredibus nostris ccc libras - sterlingorum blancorum.... Et præterea concessimus civibus Londoniarum, - quod ipsi de se ipsis faciant Vicecomites quoscunque voluerint, et - amoveant quando voluerint; ... Hanc vero concessionem et confirmationem - fecimus civibus Londoniarum propter emendationem ejusdem civitatis et - quia antiquitus consuevit esse ad firmam pro ccc libris."[1084] - -Here at length we return to the concessions of Henry I., with which this -charter of John ought to be carefully compared. With the exception of -the former's provision about the "justiciar" (an exception which must -not be overlooked), the concessions are the same. The subsequent raising -of the _firma_ to £400 (in 1270), and its eventual reduction to £300 (in -1327), have been already dealt with (pp. 358, 359). - -We see then that, in absolute contradiction of the received belief on -the subject, the shrievalty was not in the hands of the citizens during -the twelfth century (_i.e._ from "1101"), but was held by them for a few -years only, about the close of the reign of Henry I. The fact that the -sheriffs of London and Middlesex were, under Henry II. and Richard I., -appointed throughout by the Crown, must compel our historians to -reconsider the independent position they have assigned to the City at -that early period. The Crown, moreover, must have had an object in -retaining this appointment in its hands. We may find it, I think, in -that jealousy of exceptional privilege or exemption which characterized -the _régime_ of Henry II. For, as I have shown, the charters to Geoffrey -remind us that the ambition of the urban communities was analogous to -that of the great feudatories in so far as they both strove for -exemption from official rule. It was precisely to this ambition that -Henry II. was opposed; and thus, when he granted his charter to London, -he wholly omitted, as we have seen, two of his grandfather's -concessions, and narrowed down those that remained, that they might not -be operative outside the actual walls of the city. When the shrievalty -was restored by John to the citizens (1199), the concession had lost its -chief importance through the triumph of the "communal" principle. When -that civic revolution had taken place which introduced the "communa" -with its mayor—a revolution to which Henry II. would never, writes the -chronicler, have submitted—when a Londoner was able to boast that he -would have no king but his mayor, then had the sheriff's position become -but of secondary importance, subordinate, as it has remained ever since, -to that of the mayor himself. - -The transient existence of the local _justitiarius_ is a phenomenon of -great importance, which has been wholly misunderstood. The Mandeville -charters afford the clue to the nature of this office. It represents a -middle term, a transitional stage, between the essentially _local_ -shire-reeve and the _central_ "justice" of the king's court. I have -already (p. 106) shown that the office sprang from "the differentiation -of the sheriff and the justice," and represented, as it were, the -localization of the central judicial element. That is to say, the -_justitiarius_ for Essex, or Herts., or London and Middlesex, was a -purely local officer, and yet exercised, within the limits of his -bailiwick, all the authority of the king's justice. So transient was -this state of things that scarcely a trace of it remains. Yet Richard de -Luci may have held the post, as we saw (p. 109), for the county of -Essex, and there is evidence that Norfolk had a justice of its own in -the person of Ralf Passelewe.[1085] Now, in the case of London, the -office was created by the charter of Henry I., granted (as I contend) -towards the end of his reign, and it expired with the accession of -Henry II. It is, therefore, in Stephen's reign that we should expect to -find it in existence; and it is precisely in that reign that we find the -office _eo nomine_ twice granted to the Earl of Essex and twice -mentioned as held by Gervase, otherwise Gervase of Cornhill.[1086] - -The office of the "Justiciar of London" should now be no longer obscure; -its possible identity with those of portreeve, sheriff, or mayor cannot, -surely, henceforth be maintained. - -[1009] On the somewhat thorny question of the right extension of "Lond'" -(Lond_onia_ or Lond_oniæ_) I would explain at the outset that both -forms, the singular and the plural, are found, so that either extension -is legitimate. I have seen no reason to change my belief (as set forth -in the _Athenæum_, 1887) that "Londoni_a_" is the Latinization of the -English "Londone," and "Londoni_æ_" of the Norman "Londres." - -[1010] "Vicecomitatus de Londonia et de Middelsexa ... pro ccc libris." - -[1011] "Vicecomitatum Lundoniæ et Middelsex pro ccc libris." - -[1012] Madox's _Firma Burgi_, p. 242, _note_. - -[1013] These words were written before the late changes. - -[1014] A remarkable illustration of this loose usage is afforded by the -case of the archdeaconry. Take the styles of Ralph "de Diceto." Dr. -Stubbs writes of his archdeaconry: "That it was the archdeaconry of -Middlesex is certain ... it is beyond doubt, and wherever Ralph is -called Archdeacon of London, it is only loosely in reference to the fact -that he was one of the four archdeacons of the diocese" (_Radulfi de -Diceto Opera_, I. xxxv., xxxvi.). But, as to this explanation, the -writer adduces no evidence in support of this view, that all "four -archdeacons" might be described, loosely, as "of London." Indeed, he -admits, further on (p. xl., _note_), "that the title of Essex or -Colchester is generally given to the holders of these two -archdeaconries, so that really the only two between which confusion was -likely to arise were London and Middlesex." Now, in a very formal -document, quoted by Dr. Stubbs himself (p. 1., _note_), Ralph is -emphatically styled "Archdeacon of London." It is clear, therefore, -that, in the case of this archdeaconry, that style was fully recognized, -and the explanation of this is to be found, I would suggest, in the use, -exemplified in the text _ut supra_, of "London" and "Middlesex" as -convertible terms. - -[1015] Mr. Freeman himself makes the same mistake, and insists on -regarding Middlesex as a subject district round the City. - -[1016] Even Dr. Sharpe, the learned editor of the valuable _Calendar of -Hustings Wills_, is similarly puzzled by a grant of twenty-five marks -out of the king's ferm "de civitate London," to be paid annually by the -sheriffs of London and Middlesex (i. 610), because he imagines that the -_firma_ was paid in respect of the sheriffwick of Middlesex alone. - -[1017] "It has been supposed that the justiciar here mentioned means a -mayor or chief magistrate, and that the grant includes that of the -election of the supreme executive officer of the City. It may be so, but -all probability is against this view. For by this time the citizens -already appear to have selected their own portreeve, by whatever name he -was called; and it is absurd to suppose that the king gave them power to -appoint a sheriff of Middlesex, if they were not already allowed to -appoint their own. The omission of any reference to the portreeve in the -charter cannot, in fact, be otherwise accounted for" (_History of -London_, i. 90). - -"The next substantial benefit they derived from the charter was the -leave to elect their own justiciar. They may place whom they will to -hold pleas of the Crown. The portreeve is here evidently intended, for -it is manifestly absurd to suppose, as some have done, that Henry -allowed the citizens to elect a reeve for Middlesex, if they could not -elect one for themselves; and if proof were wanting, we have it in the -references to the trials before the portreeve which are found in very -early documents. In one of these, which cannot be dated later than 1115, -Gilbert Proudfoot, or Prutfot, described as vicecomes, is mentioned as -having some time before given judgment against the dean and chapter as -to a piece of land on the present site of the Bank of England" -(_London_, p. 29). - -[1018] _Ninth Report Hist. MSS._, i. 66 _b_. - -[1019] Reference to p. 110, _supra_, will show at once how vain is the -effort to wrench "justitiarius" from its natural and well-known meaning. - -[1020] See Appendix O. - -[1021] Here and elsewhere I use "shire" on the strength of Middlesex -having a "sheriff" (_i.e._ a shire-reeve). - -[1022] _London_, p. 126. - -[1023] This springs, of course, from what I have termed "the fundamental -error." - -[1024] See p. 37, _ante_, and _Norm. Conq._, iii. (1869) 424, 544, 729. - -[1025] I would suggest that, as in the case of Ulf, the Reeve of "London -and Middlesex" might be addressed as portreeve in writs affecting the -City and as shire-reeve in those more particularly affecting the rest of -Middlesex. - -[1026] Dr. Stubbs, in a footnote, hazards "the conjecture" that "the -disappearance of the portreeve" may be connected with "a civic -revolution, the history of which is now lost, but which might account -for the earnest support given by the citizens to Stephen," etc. In -another place (_Select Charters_, p. 300) he writes: "How long the -Portreeve of London continued to exist is not known; perhaps until he -was merged in the _mayor_." I have already dealt with Mr. Loftie's -explanation of "the omission of any reference to the portreeve" in the -charter. - -[1027] See p. 37, _ante_, and Addenda. - -[1028] See _Athenæum_, February 5, 1887, p. 191; also my papers on "The -First Mayor of London" in _Academy_, November 12, 1887, and _Antiquary_, -March, 1887. - -[1029] _Const. Hist._, i. 404. - -[1030] "The ... shire organization which seems to have displaced early -in the century" [_i.e._ by Henry's charter] "the complicated system of -guild and franchise" (_ibid._, i. 630). - -[1031] _Ibid._, i. 405. - -[1032] This was written before the days of the London County Council. - -[1033] _Ibid._, i. 630. - -[1034] _Liber de Antiquis Legibus_, p. 124: "Circa idem tempus, scilicet -Pentecosten (1270), ad instantiam domini Edwardi concessit Dominus Rex -civibus ad habendum de se ipsis duos Vicecomites, qui tenerent -Vicecomitatum Civitatis et Midelsexiæ ad firmam sicut ante solebant: -Ita, tamen, cum temporibus transactis solvissent inde tantummodo per -annum ccc libras sterlingorum blancorum, quod de cetero solvent annuatim -cccc libras sterlingorum computatorum.... Et tunc tradite sunt civibus -omnes antique carte eorum de libertatibus suis que fuerunt in manu -Domini Regis, et concessum est eis per Dominum Regem et per Dominum -Edwardum ut eis plenarie utantur, excepto quod pro firma Civitatis et -Comitatus solvent per annum cccc libras, sicut præscriptum est. - -"Tunc temporis dederunt Cives Domino Regi centum marcas sterlingorum.... -Dederunt etiam Domino Edwardo Vᶜ. marcas ad expensas suas in itinere -versus Terram Sanctam." This passage is quoted in full because, -important though the transaction is, not a trace of it is to be found in -_The Historical Charters and Constitutional Documents of the City of -London_ (1884), the latest work on the subject. So, in 1284, when Edward -I., who had "taken into his hands" the town of Nottingham for some -years, restored the burgesses their liberties, it was at the price of -their _firma_ being raised from £52 to £60 a year. - -[1035] _History of London_, ii. 208, 209. - -[1036] A curious illustration of the fact that this _firma_ arose out of -the city and county alike is afforded by Henry III.'s charter (1253): -"quod vii libre sterlingorum per annum allocarentur Vicecomitibus in -firma eorum pro libertate ecclesiæ sancti Pauli." - -[1037] This is illustrated by the subsequent prohibition of the sheriffs -themselves underletting the county at "farm" (_Liber Custumarum_, p. 91; -_Liber Albus_, p. 46). - -[1038] _Rot. Pip._, 31 Hen. I., p. 2. - -[1039] _Ibid._, p. 122. - -[1040] _Ibid._, p. 100. - -[1041] _Ibid._, p. 52. - -[1042] "William de Einesford, vicecomes de Londoniâ," heads the list of -witnesses to a London agreement assigned to 1114-1130 (_Ramsey -Cartulary_, i. 139). - -[1043] _Rot. Pip._, 31 Hen. I., p. 144. - -[1044] Probably the mysterious "scotale" was among them (cf. Stubbs, -_Const. Hist._, i. 628). - -[1045] Cf. Stubbs, _Const. Hist._, i. 410. - -[1046] The ferm of Lincolnshire in 1130 was rather over £750 (£40 -"numero" _plus_ £716 16_s._ 3_d._ "blanch"). - -[1047] We have a precisely similar illustration, ninety years later, in -the case of Carlisle. In 5 Hen. III. (1220-21) the citizens of Carlisle -obtained permission to hold their city _ad firmam_ for £60 a year -payable to the Crown direct, in the place of £52 a year payable through -the sheriff ("per vicecomitem") and his ferm of the shire (_Ninth Report -Hist. MSS._, App. i. pp. 197, 202). - -[1048] _Rot. Pip._, 31 Hen. I., p. 149. - -[1049] Compare Henry III.'s charter to John Gifard of Chillington, -conceding that during his lifetime he should not be made a _sheriff_, -coroner, or any other bailiff against his will (_Staffordshire -Collections_, v. [1] 158). - -[1050] _History of London_, ii. 88. Compare Mr. Loftie's _London_ -("Historic Towns"), p. 28: "The exact date of the charter is given by -Rymer as 1101." - -[1051] Vol. iii. p. 4. - -[1052] _The Charters of the City of London_ (1884), p. xiiii.: "To -engage the citizens to support his Government he conferred upon them the -advantageous privileges that are conferred in this charter." - -[1053] _Const. Hist._, i. 406. - -[1054] £327 3_s._ 11_d._ "blanch," _plus_ £209 6_s._ 5½_d._ "numero." - -[1055] "Infinitæ copiæ pecuniam ... cum ore imperioso ab eis exegit" -(_Gesta Stephani_). - -[1056] "Interpellata est et a civibus ut leges eis regis Edwardi -observare liceret, quia optimæ erant, non patris sui Henrici quia graves -erant" (_Cont. Flor. Wig._). - -[1057] _London_ ("Historic Towns"), p. 38. The Master of University -similarly writes: "He [Henry II.] renewed the charter of the city of -London" (i. 90). - -[1058] _England under the Angevin Kings_, ii. 471. The writer, being -only acquainted with the printed copy of the charter (_Liber -Custumarum_, ed. Riley, pp. 31, 32), had only the names of the two -witnesses there given (the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of -London) to guide her, but, fortunately, the _Liber Rubeus_ version -records all the witnesses (thirteen in number) together with the place -of testing, thus limiting the date to 1154-56, and virtually to 1155. - -[1059] The omitted clauses are these: "Sciatis me concessisse civibus -meis Londoniarum, tenendum Middlesex ad firmam pro ccc libris ad -compotum, ipsis et heredibus suis, de me et heredibus meis, ita quod -ipsi cives ponent vicecomitem qualem voluerint de se ipsis, et -justitiarium qualem voluerint de se ipsis, ad custodiendum placita -coronæ meæ et eadem placitanda; et nullus alius erit justitiarius super -ipsos homines Londoniarum." - -[1060] "Lond'" (_Liber Rubeus_). - -[1061] "Et" omitted in _L. R._ - -[1062] "Portsoca" (_L. R._). - -[1063] "Nullus eorum" (_L. R._). - -[1064] "Duellum" (_L. R._). - -[1065] "Pertinentibus" (_L. R._). - -[1066] "London'" (_L. R._). - -[1067] "Port'" (_L. R._). - -[1068] "Regis H." (_L. R._). - -[1069] "Consuetudinem" (_L. R._). - -[1070] "Lond'" (_L. R._). - -[1071] "Apud Lond' teneantur" (_L. R._). - -[1072] Clauses 11 and 12 in the charter of Henry I. are transposed in -that of Henry II. But it is more convenient to show the transposition as -I have done in the text. - -[1073] "Eas habuerunt" (_L. R._). - -[1074] "Omnes sint" (_L. R._). - -[1075] "Yeresgieve" (_L. R._). - -[1076] "London'" (_L. R._). - -[1077] The first two witnesses to that of Henry I. are given as -"episcopo Winton., Roberto filio Richer. (_sic_)." The bishop's initial -ought to be given, and the second witness is probably identical with -Robert fitz Rich_ard_. "Huberto (_sic_) regis camerario" has also a -suspicious sound. In the second charter the witnesses are given in the -_Liber Custumarum_ as "Archiepiscopo Cantuariæ, Ricardo Episcopo -Londoniarum." Here, again, the primate's initial should be given; as, -indeed, it is in the (more accurate) _Liber Rubeus_ version, where -(_vide supra_, p. 367) all the witnesses are entered. - -[1078] This explanation is confirmed by examining other municipal -charters based on that of London. In them this clause always confirms -(1) "terras et tenuras," (2) "vadia," (3) "debita." - -[1079] In confirmation of this view, it may be pointed out that where -this same clause occurs in charters to other towns, the words are -"vicecomes _noster_" in cases, as at Winchester, where the king retains -in his hand the appointment of reeve, but simply (as at Lincoln) -"præpositus" or (as at Northampton) "præpositus Northamtonie," where the -right to elect the reeve was also conceded. - -[1080] £66 17_s._ 1_d._ "blanch" _plus_ £474 17_s._ 10½_d._ "numero." - -[1081] £445 19_s._ "blanch" _plus_ £78 3_s._ 6_d._ "numero." - -[1082] £181 14_s._ 5_d._ "blanch" _plus_ £335 0_s._ 7_d._ "numero." - -[1083] As an example of the possibility of error, in the printed Roll of -1159 (5 Hen. II.) a town is entered on the Roll as paying "quater xx. -lv. libras et ii marcas et dim'." The explanation of this unintelligible -entry is, I may observe, as follows. The original entry evidently ran, -"quater xx et ii marcas et dim'" (82½ marcs). Over this a scribe will -have written the equivalent amount in pounds ("lv libræ") by -interlineation. Then came the modern transcriber, who with the stupidity -of a mechanical copyist brought down this interlineation into the middle -of the entry, thus converting it into sheer nonsense. We have also to -reckon with such clerical errors as the addition or omission of an "x" -or an "i," of a "bl." or a "no." Where the total to be accounted for is -stated separately, we have a means of checking the accounts. But where, -as at London, this is not so, we cannot be too careful in accepting the -details as given. See also Addenda. - -[1084] _Liber Custumarum_ (Rolls Series), pp. 249-251. - -[1085] "Contra Radulfum de Belphago qui tunc vicecomes erat in provincia -illa et contra Radulfum Passelewe ejusdem provinciæ justiciarium" -(_Ramsey Cart._, i. 149). - -[1086] See Appendix K, on "Gervase of Cornhill." - - - - - APPENDIX Q - OSBERTUS OCTODENARII. - (See p. 170.) - - -The reference to this personage in the charter to the Earl of Essex is -of quite exceptional interest. He was the Osbert (or Osbern) -"Huit-deniers" (_alias_ "Octodenarii" _alias_ "Octonummi") who was a -wealthy kinsman of Becket and employed him, in his house, as a clerk -about this very time (_circ._ 1139-1142). We meet him as "Osbertus VIII. -denarii" at London in 1130 (_Rot. Pip._, 31 Hen. I.), and I have also -found him attesting a charter of Henry I., late in the reign, as -"Osberto Octodenar[ii]." Garnier[1087] tells us that the future saint— - - "A soen parent vint, un riche hume Lundreis, - Ke mult ert koneiiz et de Frauns et d'Engleis, - O Osbern witdeniers, ki l'retint demaneis. - Puis fu ses escriveins, ne sais dous ans, u treis." - -Another biographer writes:— - - "Rursus vero Osbernus, Octonummi cognomine, vir insignis in civitate et - multarum possessionum cui carne propinquus erat detentum circa se - Thomam fere per triennium in breviandis sumptibus redditibusque suis - jugiter occupabat."[1088] - -The influential position of this wealthy Londoner is dwelt on by yet -another biographer:— - - "Ad quendam Lundrensem, cognatum suum, qui non solum inter concives, - verum etiam apud curiales, grandis erat nominis et honoris se - contulit."[1089] - -In one of the appendices we shall detect him under the strange form -"Ottdevers"[1090] (= "Ottdeuers," a misreading for "Ottdeners") -witnessing a treaty arrangement between the Earls of Hereford and -Gloucester. This he did in his capacity of feudal tenant to the latter, -for in the Earl of Gloucester's _Carta_ (1166) of his tenants in Kent we -read: "Feodum Osberti oitdeniers i mil[item]," from which we learn that -he had held one knight's fee.[1091] - -This singular _cognomen_, though savouring of the nickname period, may -have become hereditary, for we meet with a Philip Utdeners in 1223, and -with Alice and Agnes his daughters in 1233.[1092] - -As I have here alluded to Becket it may be permissible to mention that -as the statements of his biographers in the matter of Osbert are -confirmed by this extraneous evidence, so have we also evidence in -charters of his residence, as "Thomas of London," in the primate's -household. To two charters of Theobald to Earls Colne Priory the first -witness is "Thoma Lond' Capellano nostro,"[1093] while an even more -interesting charter of the primate brings before us those three names, -which, says William of Canterbury, were those of his three intimates, -the first witness being Roger of Bishopsbridge, while the fourth and -fifth are John of Canterbury and Thomas of London, "clerks."[1094] Here -is abundant evidence that Becket was then known as "Thomas of London," -as indeed Gervase of Canterbury himself implies.[1095] - -[1087] _Vie de St. Thomas_ (ed. Hippeau, 1859). - -[1088] Grim. - -[1089] Auctor anonymus. - -[1090] Its apparent dissimilarity to the "Octod'" of Geoffrey's charter -is instructive to note. - -[1091] Hearne, who prints this entry, "Feodum Osberti oct. deniers i. -mil." (_Liber Niger_, ed. 1774, i. 53), makes it the occasion of an -exquisitely funny display of erudite Latinity, in which he gravely -rebukes Dugdale for his ignorance on the subject ("quid sibi velit -_denariata militis_ ignorasse videtur Dugdalius quam tamen is facile -intelliget," etc., etc.), having himself mistaken the tenant's name for -a term of land measurement. - -[1092] _Bracton's Note-book_ (ed. Maitland), ii. 616; iii. 495. A -Nicholas "Treys-deners" or "Treydeners" occurs in Cornwall in the same -reign (_De Banco_, 45-46 Hen. III., Mich., No. 16, m. 62). "Penny" and -"Twopenny" are still familiar surnames among us, as is also -"Pennyfather" (? Pennyfarthing). - -[1093] _Addl. MS._, 5860, fols. 221, 223 (ink). - -[1094] _Cott. MSS._, Nero, C. iii. fol. 188. - -[1095] "Clerico suo Thomæ Londoniensi" (i. 160). - - - - - APPENDIX R. - THE FOREST OF ESSEX. - (See pp. 92, 168, 182.) - - -The references to assarts and to (forest) pleas in the first and -second charters of the Empress ought to be carefully compared, -as they are of importance in many ways. They run thus respectively:— - - FIRST CHARTER. - - Ut ipse et omnes homines sui per totam Angliam sint quieti de Wastis - forestariis et assartis que facta sunt in feodo ipsius Gaufredi usque - ad diem quo homo meus devenit, et ut a die illo in antea omnia illa - essarta sint amodo excultibilia, et arrabilia sine forisfacto. - - SECOND CHARTER. - - Quod ipse et omnes homines sui habeant et lucrentur omnia essarta sua - libera et quieta de omnibus placitis facta usque ad diem qua servicio - domini mei Comitis Andegavie ac meo adhæsit. - -A similar provision will be found in the charter to Aubrey de Vere. It -is evident from these special provisions that the grantees attached a -peculiar importance to this indemnity for their assarts; and it is -equally noteworthy that the Empress is careful to restrict that -indemnity to those assarts which had been made before a certain date -("facta usque ad diem quâ," etc.). This restriction should be compared -with that which similarly limited the indemnity claimed by the barons of -the Exchequer,[1096] and which has been somewhat overlooked.[1097] - -Assarts are duly dealt with in the _Leges Henrici Primi_, and would form -an important part of the "placita forestæ" in his reign. It is -reasonable to presume that one of the first results of the removal of -his iron hand would be a violent reaction against the tyranny of "the -forest." Indeed, we know that Stephen was compelled to give way upon the -point. A general outburst of "assarting" would at once follow. Thus the -prospect of the return, with the Empress, of her father's forest-law -would greatly alarm the offenders who were guilty of "assarts."[1098] - -But, further, the earl's fief lay away from the forest proper. Why, -then, was this concession of such importance in his eyes? We are helped -towards an answer to this question by Mr. Fisher's learned and -instructive work on _The Forest of Essex_. The facts there given, though -needing some slight correction, show us that the Crown asserted in the -reign of Henry III., that the portion of the county which had been -afforested since the accession of Henry II. had (with the exception of -the hundred of Tendring) been merely _re_afforested, having been already -"forest" at the death of Henry I., though under Stephen it had ceased to -be so. This claim, which was successfully asserted, affected more than -half the county. Now, it is singular that throughout the struggle, on -this subject, with the Crown, the true forest, that of Waltham (now -Epping), was always conceded to be "within forest." Mr. Fisher's -valuable maps show its limits clearly. It was, accordingly, tacitly -admitted by the perambulation consequent on the Charter of the Forest to -have been "forest" before 1154. - -The theory suggested to me by these _data_ is this. Stephen, we know, by -his Charter of Liberties consented that all the forests created by -Henry I. should be disafforested, and retained for himself only those -which had been "forest" in the days of the first and the second William. -Under this arrangement he retained, I hold, the small true forest -(Waltham forest), but had to resign the grasp of the Crown on the -additions made to it by Henry I., which amounted to considerably more -than half the county. My view that this sweeping extension of "forest" -was the work of Henry I. is confirmed by the fact that his "forest" -policy is admittedly the most objectionable feature of his rule. Nor, I -take it, was it inspired so much by the love of sport as by the great -facilities it afforded for pecuniary exaction. In the Pipe-Roll of his -thirty-first year we find (to adapt an old saying) "forest pleas as -thick as fleas" in Essex, affording proof, moreover, that his "forest" -had extended to the extreme north-east of the Lexden hundred. Here then -again, I believe, as in so many other matters, Henry II. ignored his -predecessor, and reverted to the _status quo ante_. Nor was the claim he -revived finally set at rest, till Parliament disposed of it for ever in -the days of Charles I. - -An interesting charter bearing on this subject is preserved to us by -Inspeximus.[1099] It records the restoration by Stephen to the Abbess of -Barking of all her estates afforested by Henry I.[1100] Now, this -charter, which is tested at Clarendon (perhaps the only record of -Stephen being there), is witnessed by W[illiam] Martel, A[ubrey] de Ver, -and E[ustace] fitz John. The name of this last witness[1101] dates the -charter as previous to 1138 (when he threw over Stephen), and, -virtually, to the king's departure for Normandy early in 1137. -Consequently (and this is an important point) we here have Stephen -granting, as a favour, to Barking Abbey what he had promised in his -great charter to grant universally.[1102] This confirms the charge made -by Henry of Huntingdon that he repudiated the concession he had made. -His subsequent troubles, however, must have made it difficult for him to -adhere to this policy, or check the process of assarting. His grant to -the abbess was unknown to Mr. Fisher, who records an inquest of 1292, by -which it was found that the woods of the abbess were "without the -Regard;" and the Regarders were forbidden to exercise their authority -within them. - -[1096] "Ut de hiis essartis dicantur quieti, quæ fuerant _ante diem quâ -rex illustris Henricus primus rebus humanis exemptus est_" (Dialogus, i. -11). The reason for the restriction is added. - -[1097] See, for instance, _The Forest of Essex_ (Fisher), p. 313. - -[1098] As a matter of fact, her son's succession was marked by the -exaction of heavy sums, under this head, as shown by the extracts from -his first Pipe-Roll in the Red book of the Exchequer. - -[1099] Pat. 2 Hen. VI., p. 3, m. 18. - -[1100] "Reddo et concedo ecclesiæ Berchingie et Abbatissæ Adel[iciæ] -omnes boscos et terras suas ... quas Henricus Rex afforestavit, ut illas -excolat et hospitetur." - -[1101] Probably present as a brother of the abbess ("Soror Pagani filii -Johannis"). - -[1102] "Omnes forestas quas rex Henricus superaddidit ecclesiis et regno -quietas reddo et concedo." - - - - - APPENDIX S. - THE TREATY OF ALLIANCE BETWEEN THE EARLS OF HEREFORD AND GLOUCESTER. - (See p. 176.) - - -The document which is printed below is unknown, it would seem, to -historians. It is of a very singular and, in many ways, of a most -instructive character. The fact that Earl Miles is one of the -contracting parties dates the document as belonging to the period -between his creation (July 25, 1141) and his death (December 24, 1143). -Further, the fact that the treaty provides for the surrender by him to -the Earl of Gloucester of one of his sons as a hostage, taken with the -fact that the Earl of Gloucester is recorded (_supra_, p. 196) to have -demanded from his leading supporters their sons as hostages when he left -England for Normandy, creates an extremely strong presumption that this -document should be assigned to that occasion (June, 1142). It is here -printed from a transcript by Dugdale, which I found among his MSS. The -absence of any provision defining the services to be rendered by Earl -Miles suggests that this portion of the treaty is omitted in the -transcript. There is, I think, just a chance that the original may yet -be discovered among the public records, for they fortunately contain a -similar treaty between the sons and successors of the two contracting -parties.[1103] It may be, however, that the original is the document -referred to by Dugdale (_Baronage_, i. 537) as "penes Joh. Philipot -Somerset Heraldum anno 1640." The close resemblance between the later -document[1103] and that which I here print confirms the authenticity of -the latter, and is, it will be seen, illustrated by the wording of the -opening clauses:— - - Noscant omnes hanc esse confederationem amoris inter Robertum Comitem - Gloecestrie et Milonem Comitem Herefordie. - - Hæc est confederatio amoris inter Willelmum Comitem Gloec[estrie] et - Rogerum comitem Herefordie. - -We have also the noteworthy coincidence that Richard de St. Quintin and -Hugh de Hese, who are here hostages respectively for the Earls of -Gloucester and Hereford, figure again in the later document as hostages -for the earls' successors.[1104] - -Another document with which this treaty should be carefully compared is -the remarkable agreement, in the same reign, between the Earls of -Chester and of Leicester,[1105] though this latter suggests by its -title—"Hæc est conventio ... et finalis pax et concordia," etc.—the -settlement of a strife between them rather than a friendly alliance. I -see in it, indeed, the intervention, if not the arbitration, of the -Church. - -Both these alliances, again, should be compared, for their form, with -the treaty between Henry I. and Count Robert of Flanders.[1106] Although -a generation earlier than the document here printed, the parallels are -very striking:— - - Robertus, Comes Flandriæ, fide et sacramento assecuravit Regi Henrico - vitam suam et membra quæ corpori suo pertinent ... et quod juvabit eum, - etc. - - Porro Comitissa affidavit, quod, quantum poterit, Comitem in hac - conventione tenebit, et in amicitia regis, et in prædicto servitio - fideliter per amorem. - - Hujus conventionis tenendæ ex parte Comitis obsides sunt subscripti.... - Quod si Comes ab hac conventione exierit et ... infra XL dies emendare - noluerit, etc. - - - Robertus, Comes Gloecestrie assecuravit Milonem Comitem Herefordie fide - et sacramento, ut custodiet illi pro toto posse suo et sine ingenio - suam vitam et suum membrum ... et auxiliabitur illi, etc. - - Et in hac ipsa confederatione amoris, affidavit Comitissa Gloecestrie - quod suum dominum in hoc amore erga Milonem Comitem Hereford pro posse - suo tenebit. - - Et de hac conventione tenendâ ex parte Comitis Gloecestrie sunt hii - obsides, etc.... Quod si Comes Gloecestrie de hac conventione - exiret.... Et si infra XL dies se nollet erga Comitem Herefordie - erigere, etc. - - - THE TREATY. - -Noscant omnes hanc esse confederationem amoris inter Robertum Comitem -Gloecestrie et Milonem Comitem Herefordie, Robertus Comes Gloecestrie -assecuravit Milonem Comitem Herefordie fide et sacramento ut custodiet -illi pro toto posse suo et sine ingenio suam vitam et suum membrum et -terrenum suum honorem, et auxiliabitur illi ad custodiendum sua castella -et sua recta et sua hereditaria et sua tenementa et sua conquisita quæ -modo habet et quæ faciet, et suas consuetudines et rectitudines et suas -libertates in bosco et in plano et aquis, et quod sua hereditaria quæ -modo non habet auxiliabitur ad conquirendum. Et si aliquis vellet inde -Comiti Hereford malum facere, vel de aliquo decrescere, si comes -Hereford vellet inde guerrare, quod Robertus comes Gloecestrie cum illo -se teneret, et quod ad suum posse illi auxiliaretur per fidem et sine -ingenio, nec pacem neque treuias cum illis haberet qui malum comiti -Herefordiæ inferret, nisi per bonum velle et grantam (_sic_) Comitis -Herefordiæ, et nominatim de hac guerra quæ modo est inter Imperatricem -et Regem Stephanum se cum comite Hereford tenebit et ad unum opus erit, -et de omnibus aliis guerris. - -Et in hac ipsa confederatione amoris affidavit Comitissa Gloecestrie -quod suum dominum in hoc amore erga Milonem Comitem Hereford pro posse -suo tenebit. Et si inde exiret, ad suum posse illum ad hoc reponeret. Et -si non posset, legalem recordationem, si opus esset, inde faceret ad -suum scire. - -Et de hac conventione firmiter tenendâ ex parte Comitis Gloecestrie sunt -hii obsides per fidem et sacramentum erga Comitem Hereford: hoc modo, -quod si comes Gloecestrie de hac conventione exiret, dominum suum -Comitem Gloecestrie requirerent ut se erga Comitem Herefordiæ erigeret. -Et si infra xl dies se nollet erga Comitem Herefordie erigere, se Comiti -Herefordie liberarent, ad faciendum de illis suum velle, vel ad illos -retinendum in suo servitio donec illos quietos clamaret vel ad illos -ponendos ad legalem redemptionem ita ne terrâ [? terram] perderent. Et -quod legalem recordationem de hac conventione facerent si opus esset, -Guefridus de Waltervill, Ricardus de Greinvill,[1107] Osbernus -Ottdevers,[1108] Reinald de Cahagnis,[1109] Hubertus Dapifer, Odo -Sorus,[1110] Gislebertus de Umfravil,[1111] Ricardus de Sancto -Quintino.[1112] - -Et ex parte Milonis Comitis Hereford ad istud confirmandum concessit -Milo Comes Hereford Roberto Comiti Gloecestrie Mathielum filium suum -tenendum in obsidem donec guerra inter Imperatricem et Regem Stephanum -et Henricum filium Imperatricis finiatur. - -Et interim si Milo Comes Hereford voluerit aliquem alium de suis filiis, -qui sanus sit, in loco Mathieli filii sui ponere, recipietur. - -Et postquam guerra finita fuerit et Robertus Comes Gloecestrie et Milo -Comes Hereford terras suas et sua recta rehabuerint reddet Robertus -Comes Gloecestrie Miloni Comiti Herefordie filium suum. Et hinc de -probis hominibus utriusque comitis considerabuntur et capientur obsides -et securitates de amore ipsorum comitum tenendo imperpetuum. - -Et de hac conventione amoris Rogerus filius Comitis Hereford affidavit -et juravit Comiti Gloecestrie quod patrem suum pro posse suo tenebit; Et -si Comes Hereford inde vellet exire, Rogerus filius suus, inde illum -requireret et inde illum corrigeret. Et si Comes Hereford se inde -erigere nollet, servicium ipsius Rogeri filii sui prorsus perdet, donec -se erga Comitem Gloecestrie erexisset. - -Et de hac conventione ex parte Comitis Hereford sunt hii sui homines -obsides erga Comitem Gloecestrie et per sacramenta; hoc modo, quod si -Comes Hereford de hac conventione exiret, dominum suum Comitem Hereford -requirerent ut se erga Comitem Gloecestrie erigeret. Et si infra xl dies -se nollet erga Comitem Gloecestrie erigere se Comiti Gloecestrie -liberarent ad faciendum de illis suum velle, vel ad illos retinendum in -suo servicio donec illos quietos clamaret, vel ad illos ponendos ad -legalem redemptionem, ita ne terram perdent. Et quod legalem -recordationem de hac conventione in Curia facerent si opus esset, -Robertus Corbet, Willelmus Mansel, Hugo de la Hese. - -[1103] Duchy of Lancaster: Ancient Charters, Box A. No. 4 (_Thirty-Fifth -Report of Deputy Keeper_ (1874), p. 2). - -[1104] A somewhat similar treaty to this may be hinted at in the -statement that Roger de Berkeley was connected with Walter de Gloucester -"amicitia et alternæ pacis fœdere sibi astrictum" (_Gesta Stephani_). - -[1105] _Cott. MS._, Nero, C. iii. fol. 178. - -[1106] Printed in Hearne's _Liber Niger_ (i. 16-23). - -[1107] Richard de Greinvill appears in 1166 as the _late_ holder of -seven knights' fees from the earl (_Liber Niger_). - -[1108] Osbern Ottdevers (_i.e._ Ottde_n_ers) was Osbern Octodenarii, -_alias_ Octonummi (see Appendix Q). He appears in 1166 as the _late_ -tenant of one knight's fee from the earl _in Kent_ (_ibid._). - -[1109] Philip "de Chahaines" appears as a tenant of the earl in 1166 -(_ibid._). - -[1110] An Odo Sorus is alleged to have accompanied Robert fitz Hamon -into Wales. Jordan Sorus was the largest tenant of the earl in 1166, -holding fifteen knights' fees from him (_Liber Niger_). His predecessor, -Robert Sorus, had held of the fief under Robert fitz Hamon _circ._ 1107 -(_Cart. Abingdon_, ii. 96, 106). - -[1111] Gilbert de Umfravill held nine knights' fees from the earl in -1166 (_Liber Niger_). - -[1112] Richard de St. Quintin held ten knights' fees from the earl in -1166 (_ibid._). His family had been tenants of the fief even under -Robert fitz Hamon (_Cart. Abingdon_, ii. 96, 106). - - - - - APPENDIX T. - "AFFIDATIO IN MANU." - (See p. 177.) - - -"Hanc autem ... affidavi manu mea propria in manu ipsius Comitis -Gaufredi." This formula ("affidavi ... in manu") is deserving of careful -study. It ought to be compared with a passage in the _Chronicle of -Abingdon_ (ii. 160), describing how, some quarter of a century before, -in the assembled county court (_comitatus_) of Berkshire, the delegate -of the abbey, "pro ecclesiâ affidavit fidem in manu ipsius vicecomitis, -vidente toto comitatu." This was a case of "affidatio" by proxy; but in -the above charter we find Geoffrey stipulating for "affidatio" in person -("propria manu") by the Empress, her husband, and her son. Accordingly, -when the young Henry confirms his mother's charter to Aubrey de Vere -(see p. 186), he does so "manu mea propria in manu Hugonis de Inga, -sicut mater mea Imperatrix affidavit in manu Comitis Gaufredi." Thus -Geoffrey allowed himself the privilege, which he refused to the other -contracting party, of "affidatio" by proxy, and made Hugh de Ing his -delegate for the purpose. - -A curious allusion to this practice is found in the words of Ranulf -Flambard some half a century earlier, when he promises the captor in -whose power he was to grant him all that he can ask, "et ne discredas -promissis, ecce _manu affirmo_ quod polliceor."—Continuatio Historiæ -Turgoti (_Anglia Sacra_, i. 707). The formula was probably of great -antiquity. It occurs in the lifetime of Archbishop Oswald (died 992), -who obtained a lease for life on behalf of a certain Wulfric, of the -provisions in which we read: "Hoc totum idem Wlfricus, sub oculis -multorum qui aderant, _in manu_ viri Dei qui pro eo intercessor -accesserat _affidavit_" (_Chron. Ram._, p. 81). It is found, however, as -late as 1187, when at the foundation of Dodnash Priory the canons -"juraverunt et fidem _in manu nostra_ corporaliter ... firmaverunt," -says the bishop (_Ancient Charters_, p. 88). Another late instance is -found in the _Burton Cartulary_ (fol. 33), where Robert fitz Walter, -that his grant "inconcussum permaneat, in toto comitatu, multis -cementibus qui se ipsos testes concesserunt, in manu Vicecomitis -Serlonis manu meâ hoc tenendum et servandum affidavi." So also in the -Pipe-Roll of 3 John we find recorded a lease, "et quod ipse Micael et -Everardus frater suus affidaverunt in manu H. Cantuarensis Arch. hanc -Conventionem fideliter tenendam" (Rot. 6 _b_). An instance, in 1159, may -be quoted from the _Cartulary of St. Michael on the Mount_ because of -its curious legal bearing. Robert de Belvoir mortgages to the abbey -lands which he had settled on his wife in dower, and, in order to bar -her claim, she, _by her brother_, guarantees the transaction by -"affidatio in manu" to the abbot's delegate.[1113] This arrangement -should be compared with that which is discussed in my _Ancient -Charters_, pp. 22, 23.[1114] Perhaps, however, the most singular case is -one which I noted in the _Cartulary_ (MS.) _of Rievaulx_, and which -is also of the reign of Henry II. A widow grants lands to that abbey, -"et illam donationem tenendam et fideliter observandam manu propria -affidavit in manu Vicecomitissæ, vid. Bert[æ] uxoris vicecomitis Ranulfi -de Glanvill[a]."[1115] The conjunction here of the two women, the -presence of the great Glanville himself, and the part played by his -wife, together with the title assigned her, all combine to render the -transaction one of unusual interest. - -It was by this formal and binding pledge that the leaders of the English -host swore to one another to do or die on the field of the Battle of the -Standard. Turning to William of Aumâle, and placing his hand in his, -Walter Espec pledged his faith that he would conquer or be slain; and -his fellow-commanders did the same."[1116] It was, again, by this solemn -pledge, towards the close of Stephen's reign, that the Bishop of -Winchester, before his brother prelates, covenanted to surrender -Winchester to the duke at the king's death[1117]—even as the duke -himself had covenanted (April 9, 1152) with the Bishop of Salisbury -concerning Devizes Castle[1118]—in terms to be closely compared with -those of his charter to Aubrey, and his mother's to Earl Geoffrey in -1142. - -The practice is, I find, alluded to, incidentally, by Giraldus -Cambrensis, who tells us that the Welsh "Adeo fidei fœdus, aliis -inviolabile gentibus, parvipendere solent, ut non in seriis solum et -necessariis, verum in ludicris, omnique fere verbo firmando, _dextræ -manus ut mos est porrectione, signo usuali dato_, fidem gratis effundere -consueverint." Here the point of the complaint is that they made light -of this solemn practice, indulging in it freely on every occasion -instead of reserving it for important matters. The existence of this -archaic "fidei fœdus" as the _formal confirmation_ of a contract is, of -course, of the greatest interest. It still lingers on, not only with us, -but abroad. In San Marino (Italy), for instance, "sales are conducted -with much animation. Two sturdy proprietors stand back to back.... A -third party stands between the two; ... he pulls one by the shoulder, -the other by an elbow, and finally by an apparently acrobatic feat _he -unites their hands_" ("A Political Survival," _Macmillan's_, January, -1891, p. 197). In the Lebanon, we are told by a well-informed writer: "A -few months ago I had occasion to enter into a business contract with one -of my Druse farmers. When we were about to draw up the agreement, the -Druse suggested that, as he could neither read nor write, we should -ratify the bargain in the manner customary among his people. This -consists of a solemn grasping of hands together in the presence of two -or three other Druses as witnesses, whilst the agreement is recited by -both parties.... Accordingly, the farmer brought three of his neighbours -to me; and the terms of our contract having been made known to them, one -of them took the right hand of each of us and joined them together, -whilst he dictated to us what to say after him" ("The Druses," -_Blackwood's_, January, 1891, pp. 754, 755). With us, Gerald would be -grieved to hear, the ancient form survives not only for the bargain but -the bet, though it only continues in full vigour as the sign of the -marriage contract, where "the minister ... shall cause the man with his -right hand to take the woman by her right hand, and to say after him as -followeth,"—even as the Druses, we have seen, make their contracts -to-day, and as the Empress Maud sealed her own seven centuries -ago.[1119] - -The allusion by the Empress to the "Christianitas Angliæ" refers -doubtless to the fact that the breach of such "affidatio" would -constitute a "læsio fidei," and would thus become a matter for the -jurisdiction of the courts Christian. It was indeed on this plea that -these courts claimed to attract to themselves all cases of contract, a -claim against which, it is necessary to explain, an article (No. 15) of -the Constitutions of Clarendon (1164) was specially directed.[1120] - -[1113] "Invadiavit Rotbertus de Belueer pro sex libris Cenomannensium, -terram suam quam dederat uxori sue in dotem, ipsa bene hoc concedente, -Philippo fratri insuper fide sua in manu Johannis filii Bigoti illud -idem sororem suam tenere assecurante" (fol. 116). - -[1114] Ed. Pipe-Roll Society. - -[1115] "Hiis testibus, Ranulfo vicecomite, Bertha vicecomitissâ, Matilda -filia ejus." - -[1116] "Hæc dicens vertit se ad comitem Albemarlensem, dataque dextera, -'Do,' inquit, 'fidem quia hodie aut vincam Scottos aut occidar a -Scottis.' Quo similiter voto cuncti se proceres constrixerunt" (Æthelred -of Rievaulx). - -[1117] "Episcopus Wintonie in manu archiepiscopi Cantuarensis coram -episcopis affidavit quod si ego decederem castra Wintonie ... Duci -redderet." - -[1118] "Hunc supradictam conventionem ... affidavit idem Comes (_sic_) -in manu domini Cantuarensis archiepiscopi ... sine malo ingenio -tenendam; et cum eo Comes Gloucestrie.... Similiter et dominus episcopus -Sarum affidavit in manu ejusdem Legati," etc. (_Sarum Charters and -Documents_, pp. 22, 23). - -[1119] Compare the old English term "Handfasting." The law in Austria, -it is said, still recognizes the clasping of hands as a formal contract. - -[1120] "Placita de debitis, quæ _fide interposita_ debentur, ... sint in -justitia regis." - - - - - APPENDIX U. - THE FAMILIES OF MANDEVILLE AND DE VERE. - (See p. 178.) - - -The confusion on the pedigree and relationship of these two families is -due, in the first place, to the fact that, for several generations, the -successive heads of the family of De Vere were all named Aubrey -("Albericus"); and in the second, to a chronicle of Walden Abbey, which -proves as inaccurate as to the marriage of its founder as it is on the -date of his creation.[1121] Dugdale, accepting all its statements -without the slightest hesitation, has combined in a single passage no -less than three errors, together with the means for their -detection.[1122] Among these is the statement that Geoffrey's wife was a -daughter of Aubrey de Vere, "Earl of Oxford."[1123] Accordingly, she so -figures in Dugdale's tabular pedigree, and the same error has now -reappeared in Mr. Doyle's _Official Baronage_.[1124] Oddly enough, in -his account of the De Veres, a few pages before, Dugdale makes -Geoffrey's wife daughter not of the Earl of Oxford, but of his -grandfather Aubrey,[1125] and so enters her in the tabular -pedigree.[1126] And yet she was, in truth, daughter neither of the earl -nor of his grandfather, but of his father, the chamberlain.[1127] To -establish this will now be my task. - -Between the Aubrey de Vere of Domesday and the Aubrey de Vere "senior" -of the _Cartulary of Abingdon Abbey_, about twenty years are interposed. -Their identity, therefore, is not actually proved, though the -presumption, of course, is in its favour. But from the time of the -latter Aubrey all is clear. The descent that we obtain from the Abingdon -Cartulary is as follows:— - - Aubrey = Beatrice, - de Vere, | - "senior." | - | - +----------------+-----------+-+----------+-----------+ - | | | | | - Geoffrey Aubrey de Roger de Robert de William - (or Godfrey), Vere, Vere. Vere. de Vere, - ob. v. p. at "junior" died soon - Abingdon. (afterwards after his - "camerarius father. - Regis"), - d. 1141. - -Our next source of information is the _Cartulary of Colne Priory_,[1128] -in combination with an invaluable tract, _De miraculis S. Osythæ_, -composed by William de Vere, a brother of the first earl, and a canon of -St. Osyth's Priory, Essex. Dugdale was acquainted with both documents, -but lost the full force of the latter by failing to identify its author. -He gives us as sons to Aubrey the chamberlain, and brothers to Aubrey -the first earl, (_a_) William de Vere, (_b_) —— de Vere, canon of St. -Osyth's. The identity of the two is proved, first, by a charter of -Aubrey the chamberlain, in which he speaks of his "reverend" son -William;[1129] secondly, by a charter of Aubrey the earl, witnessed by -his brother William, "presbyter;"[1130] thirdly, by the charter from the -Empress to the earl, in which she provides for all his brothers, the -chancellorship, a clerical post, being promised to William.[1131] We may -further assert of this tract that it must have been written after 1163, -for the canon tells us that his mother has spent her twenty-two years of -widowhood at St. Osyth, and her husband had been killed in 1141.[1132] -In it he refers to his father the chamberlain,[1133] as "justitiarius -totius Angliæ." To this we may trace Dugdale's assertion that he held -that high office, a statement which exercised the mind of Foss, who -complains that "it is difficult to tell on what authority" he is -introduced among its holders both by Dugdale and Spelman.[1134] He -further speaks of his mother as "Adeliza," daughter of Gilbert de Clare, -and exults in the fact that she has spent her widowhood, not in the -family priory at Colne, but in that of his own St. Osyth. He refers also -to his sister "Adeliza de Essexâ filia Alberici de Vere et Adelizæ." -Now, we have abundant evidence that "Adeliza de Essex" was sister to the -Countess Rohese, wife of Geoffrey de Mandeville, and was aunt to their -sons, Earls of Essex.[1135] Accordingly, we find the Countess Rohese -giving a rent-charge to Colne Priory for the souls of her father, Aubrey -de Vere, and her husband, Earl Geoffrey, and we also find her son, Earl -William, confirming the charter "avi mei Alberici de Vere."[1136] It is -quite clear that the Countess Rohese, wife of Geoffrey de Mandeville, -first Earl of Essex, was sister of Alice "de Essex," and daughter of -Aubrey de Vere the chamberlain, by his wife Alice, daughter of Gilbert -de Clare. - -But who was Alice "de Essex"? We must turn, for an answer to this -question, to the _Chronicle of Walden Abbey_. There we shall find that -she married twice, and left issue by both husbands. Her first husband -was Robert de Essex[1137]; her second was Roger fitz Richard, of -Clavering, Essex, and Warkworth, Northumberland, ancestor of the -Claverings. Now, "Robert de Essex" was a well-known man, being son and -heir of Swegen de Essex, Sheriff of Essex under William the Conqueror, -and grandson of Robert "fitz Wimarc," a favourite of the Confessor, -under whom he, too, was Sheriff of Essex. The descent is proved, in a -conclusive manner, by the description of the second Robert among the -benefactors to Lewes Priory, in one place as Robert fitz Suein, and in -another as Robert de Essex.[1138] Robert had founded Prittlewell Priory -as a cell to Lewes, "Alberico de Ver et Roberto fratre ejus" attesting -the foundation charter.[1139] Robert's son and heir was the well-known -Henry de Essex.[1140] So far all is clear. But, unfortunately, it is -certain that Robert de Essex left a widow, Gunnor—a Bigod by birth—who -was mother of his son Henry. Therefore "Alice of Essex" cannot have been -his widow. Consequently she must have been the widow of another Robert -de Essex, possibly a younger son of his, who held Clavering from his -elder brother Henry. In any case, by her second husband, Roger fitz -Richard, Alice was mother of Robert fitz Roger (of Clavering). - -We are now in a position to construct an authentic tabular pedigree, -showing the relationship that existed between the families of Mandeville -and De Vere. - - - William de Aubrey = Alice - Mandeville. de Vere, | de Clare, - | created Great | dau. of - | Chamberlain | Gilbert de - | 1133, | Clare, - | died 1141. | died _circ._ - | | 1163. - +---------+--------+ +-----------+------------ - | | | - William = Beatrice de (1) Geoffrey de = Rohese = (2) Payn de - de Say. | Mandeville. Mandeville, | de Vere, | Beauchamp, - | 1ST EARL OF | said to | of Bedford. - | ESSEX, d. 1144. | have died | - | | 1207. | - +--+---------+ +--------+------+ +-------+ - | | | | | - William Geoffrey Geoffrey de William de Simon de - de Say, de Say. Mandeville, Mandeville, Beauchamp. - ancestor of | 2ND EARL OF 3RD EARL OF | - Fitz Piers, | ESSEX, ESSEX, | - Earls of | d. 1166. d. 1189. | - Essex. | | - | | | - | | | - ↓ ↓ ↓ - Arms. Arms. Arms. - "_Quarterly, "_Quarterly, "_Quarterly, - or and or and or and gules_, - gules._" gules._" a bend." - - Aubrey = Alice - de Vere, | de Clare, - created Great | dau. of - Chamberlain | Gilbert de - 1133, | Clare, - died 1141. | died _circ._ - | 1163. - --------------+-----------------------------+ - | | - (1) Robert = Alice = (2) Roger fitz Aubrey de - de Essex. de Vere. | Richard of Vere, - | Warkworth. 1ST EARL OF - | OXFORD. - | | - | | - | | - Robert fitz Aubrey - Roger of de Vere, - Clavering 2ND EARL OF - and OXFORD. - Warkworth. | - | | - | | - | | - ↓ ↓ - Arms. Arms. - "_Quarterly, _Quarterly, gu._ - or and gules_, and or_, a - a bend sable." mullet argent - in the first - quarter. - -It should be observed that this pedigree is not intended to show all the -children. It gives those only which are required for our special -purpose. On some points there is still need of more original -information. No doubt Beatrice, wife of William de Say, was sister, and -not daughter, to Geoffrey de Mandeville. I know of nothing to the -contrary. Still the fact would seem to rest on the authority of the -_Walden Chronicle_. The re-marriage of the Countess of Essex to Payn de -Beauchamp, and her parentage, by him, of Simon, are both well -established, but the date of her death is taken from the _Chronicle_, -and seems suspiciously late. So also does that which is assigned to her -brother, the Earl of Oxford, namely, 1194, fifty-two years after the -charter of the Empress. Still, the fact that his mother survived her -husband for twenty-two years implies that her children may have been -comparatively young at his death. Both Aubrey and Rohese may therefore -have been several years junior to Geoffrey de Mandeville. - -But the main point has been, in any case, established, namely, the true -relationship of these baronial houses. That which is given by Dugdale -contains the further error of representing Alice de Vere as wife, not of -Robert de Essex, but of Henry. Mr. W. S. Ellis, in his _Antiquities of -Heraldry_ (p. 210), observes with truth that, as to this relationship, -the existing "accounts ... are conflicting, and that of Dugdale -contradictory." But I cannot admit that his own version is "correct, or -approximately so;" for while, with Dugdale, he errs in assigning to -Alice de Vere Henry de Essex for husband, he transforms Roger fitz -Richard, whom Dugdale had, rightly, given as her second husband, into -her son-in-law.[1141] - -My reason for alluding to this passage is that, after I had worked out -the heraldic corollaries of this descent in their bearing on the -adoption of coat-armour, I found that I had been anticipated in this -investigation by the author of that scholarly work, _The Antiquities of -Heraldry_. As the conclusions, however, at which I had arrived differ -slightly from those of Mr. Ellis, it may be worth while to set them -forth. - -Mr. Ellis writes thus of "the simple QUARTERLY shield":— - - "There can be little doubt that the source of this honoured armorial - ensign is to be found in the distinguished family of DE VERE, as all - the families in the table who bear it are descended from the head of - that house who lived at the commencement of the twelfth century."[1142] - -I should differ with no slight hesitation from so ably argued and -erudite a work, were it not that, in this case, its conclusions are -based on a false premiss. Thus we read, further on:— - - "Which was the original bearer of the quarterly coat of De Vere? Was it - Say, or Mandeville, or Lacy, or Beauchamp, or was it De Vere, from whom - all, or their wives were descended?"[1143] - -Now, "the table" given by the writer himself (p. 210) disproves this -statement, for it rightly shows us Say as descended from Mandeville, but -_not_ descended from De Vere. It is, therefore, shown by his own "table" -that this _must_ have been a case of the "collateral adoption" of arms, -the very practice against which he here strenuously argues.[1144] Thus -the very case he adduces against the existence of the practice is itself -proof absolute that the practice did exist. I am compelled to emphasize -this point because it is the pivot on which the question turns. If "all -the families in the table" who bore the quarterly coat were indeed -descended from De Vere, Mr. Ellis's theory would account for the facts. -But, by his own showing, they were not. Some other explanation must -therefore be sought. - -That which had originally occurred to myself, and to which I am still -compelled to adhere, is that "the original bearer" of this quarterly -coat was the central figure of this family group, Geoffrey de Mandeville -himself. It being, as I have shown, absolutely clear that there must -have been collateral adoption, the only question that remains to be -decided is from which of the two family stems, Mandeville or De Vere, -was the coat adopted? My first reason for selecting the former is that -the first Earl of Essex was far and away, at the time, the greatest -personage of the group. Aubrey de Vere figures, at Oxford, as his -dependant rather than as his equal. On this ground, then, it seems to me -far more probable that Aubrey should have adopted his arms from Geoffrey -than that Geoffrey should have adopted his from Aubrey. The second -reason is this. Science and analogy point to the fact that the simplest -form of the coat is, of necessity, the most original. Now, the simplest -form of this coat, its only "undifferenced" variety, is that borne by -the Earls of Essex. We do not obtain recorded blazons till the reign of -Henry III., but when we do, it is as "quartele de or & de goulez" that -the coat of the Earl of Essex, the namesake of Geoffrey de Mandeville, -first meets us.[1145] But all the descendants of De Vere, it would seem, -bear this coat "differenced," that of De Vere itself being charged with -a mullet in the first quarter, the tinctures also (perhaps for -distinction) being in this case reversed.[1146] Thus heraldry, as well -as genealogy, favours the claim of Mandeville as the original bearer of -the coat. - -It has been generally asserted in works on Heraldry that Geoffrey de -Mandeville added an escarbuncle to his simple paternal coat, and that it -is still to be seen on the shield of his effigy among the monuments at -the Temple Church. But antiquaries have now abandoned the belief that -this is indeed his effigy, and the original statement is taken only from -that _Chronicle of Walden_ which is in error in its statements on his -foundation, on his creation, on his marriage, and on his death. Nor is -there a trace of such a charge on the shields of any of his heirs.[1147] - -But the consequences of the theory here laid down have yet to be -considered. A little thought will soon show that no hypothesis can -possibly explain the adoption of the quarterly coat by these various -families at any other period than this in which they all intermarried. -If we wish to trace to its origin such a surname as Fitz-Walter, we must -go back to some ancestor who had a Walter for his father. So with -derivative coats-of-arms. By Mr. Ellis's fundamental principle we ought -to find the house of De Vere imparting its coat, for successive -generations, to those families who were privileged to ally themselves to -it. Yet we can only trace this principle at work in this particular -generation. If Mandeville, and Mandeville's kin, adopted, as he holds, -the coat of De Vere, why should not De Vere, in the previous generation, -have adopted that of Clare? Nothing, in short, can account for the -phenomena except the hypothesis that these quarterly coats all -originated in this generation and in consequence of these -intermarriages. The quarterly coat of the great earl would be adopted by -his sister's husband De Say, and by his wife's brother De Vere, and by -those other relatives shown in the pedigree. Once adopted they remain, -till they meet us in the recorded blazons of the reign of Henry III. - -The natural inference from this conclusion is that the reign of Stephen -was the period in which heraldic bearings were assuming a definite form. -Most heralds would place it later: Mr. Ellis would have us believe that -we ought to place it earlier. The question has been long and keenly -discussed, and, as with surnames, we may not be able to give with -certainty the date at which they became generally fixed. But, at any -rate, in this typical case, the facts admit of one explanation and of -one alone. - -If, as I take it, heraldic coats were mainly intended (as at Evesham) to -distinguish their bearers in the field, it is not improbable that these -kindred coats may represent the alliance of their bearers, as typified -in the Oxford charters, beneath the banner of the Earl of Essex.[1148] - -[1121] See p. 45. - -[1122] _Baronage_, i. 203 _b_. - -[1123] _Ibid._, i. 201. - -[1124] "m. Rohaise, d. of Aubrey de Vere, (afterwards) Earl of Oxford" -(i. 682). - -[1125] _Baronage_, i. 188 _b_. - -[1126] _Ibid._, 189. - -[1127] Strange to say, Dugdale gives also this third (and right) version -(_ibid._, i. 463 _a_). - -[1128] In Cole's transcript (British Museum). - -[1129] _Ibid._, No. 31. - -[1130] _Ibid._, No. 43. - -[1131] See p. 182. - -[1132] It would seem clear that this William must have been the "Dominus -Willelmus de Ver" to whom Dr. Stubbs alludes as the "early friend and -fellow-student," at the University of Paris, of Arnulf, Bishop of -Lisieux, and of the celebrated Ralf "de Diceto" (who may have been born, -Dr. Stubbs suggests, about 1122). Bishop Arnulf, asking Ralf to come -over and pay him a visit, tells him that William de Ver has promised to -come too (see preface to _Radulfus de Diceto_, pp. xxxii., _note_, -liv.). But some difficulty is caused by his appearing as a canon, not of -St. Osyth's, but of St. Paul's, in 1162 and later (_Ninth Report -Historical MSS._, App. i. pp. 19 _a_, 32 _a_). It would seem to have -been the latter William de Ver who became Bishop of Hereford in 1185, -and died 1199. - -[1133] He had received the "Cameraria Angliæ" from Henry I., in a -charter which must have passed on the occasion of the king leaving -England for the last time in 1133. Madox has printed the charter (which -has a valuable list of witnesses) in his _Baronia Anglica_, from -Dugdale's transcript. - -[1134] _Judges of England_, i. 89. - -[1135] Thus the _Chronicle of Walden Abbey_ (_Arundel MSS._) relates -that at the death of Geoffrey, Earl of Essex, in 1166, his mother was -living at her Priory of Chicksand, with her sister "Adeliza" of Essex. -On the succession of his brother William, "Alicia de Essexia" came to -Walden Abbey "ordinante comite Willelmo ejus nepote," and settled and -died there (_ibid._, cap. 18). But the most important evidence is a -charter of this same Earl William, abstracted in _Lansdowne MSS._, 259, -fol. 67, granting to "Adelicia of Essex," his mother's sister, the town -of Aynho in free dower over and above the dower she had received from -Roger fitz Richard, her lord. This charter is witnessed by his mother, -"Roesia Comitissa;" Simon de Beauchamp, his uterine brother; Geoffrey de -Ver and William de Ver, his uncles; Ranulf Glanville, and Geoffrey de -Say, who was his cousin. He had previously granted Aynho (? in 1170) to -Roger fitz Richard in exchange for Compton (co. Warwick), his charter -being witnessed _inter alios_ by John (de Lacy), the constable of -Chester (see p. 392 _n._), Ranulf de Glanville, and Geoffrey de Say (see -my paper on "A Charter of William, Earl of Essex," in _Eng. Hist. -Review_, April, 1891). - -[1136] _Colne Cartulary_, Nos. 51, 54. - -[1137] "Domino suo primo marito Roberto scilicet de Essexiâ" (_Walden -Abbey Chronicle_). Dugdale makes her, in error, the wife of Henry de -Essex. - -[1138] This descent has not hitherto been established, and Mr. Freeman -speaks of Swegen of Essex as "father or grandfather of Henry de Essex." - -[1139] He appears in the charters of this priory as "Robertus filius -Suein" and as "Robertus de Essex filius Suein." - -[1140] See Appendix N. His paternity, which is well ascertained, is -further proved by his confirmation, in the (MS.) _Colchester Cartulary_, -of a gift by his father, Robert de Essex, to St. John's Abbey, -Colchester. - -[1141] I have purposely abstained from touching on the relationship of -Lacy to De Vere, because there is evidently error somewhere in the -account given by Dugdale, and as the descent is without my sphere, I -have not investigated the question. The _Rotulus de Dominabus_ should be -consulted. Nor do I discuss the descent of Sackville. Mr. Ellis wrote: -"The coat of Sackville, _Quarterly, a bend vairé_, is doubtless derived -from De Vere, but by what match does not clearly appear." It is singular -that William de Sackville, who died _circa_ 1158, is said to have -married Adeliza, daughter of "Aubrey the sheriff," which points to some -connection between the two families. - -[1142] _Antiquities of Heraldry_, p. 209. - -[1143] _Ibid._, p. 230. - -[1144] _Ibid._, pp. 228-232. - -[1145] Doyle's _Official Baronage_, i. 685. - -[1146] I must certainly decline to accept the rash conjecture of Mr. -Ellis that the mullet of De Vere represents the chamberlainship, on the -ground that one of his predecessors, Robert Malet, _might_ have borne a -mullet as an "heraldic and allusive cognizance." - -[1147] See p. 226 _n._ - -[1148] Compare the case of Raymond (le Gros) meeting William fitz -Aldelin, on his landing in Ireland (December, 1176), at the head of -thirty of his kinsmen, "clipeis assumptis unius armaturæ" (_Expugnatio -Hiberniæ_). - - - - - APPENDIX V. - WILLIAM OF ARQUES. - (See p. 180.) - - -Separate treatment is demanded by that clause in the charter to Aubrey -which deals with the fief of William of Arques:— - - "Et do et concedo ei totam terram Willelmi de Albrincis sine placito, - pro servicio suo, simul cum hæreditate et jure quod clamat ex parte - uxoris suæ sicut unquam Willelmus de Archis ea melius tenuit." - -The descent of this barony has formed the subject of an erudite and -instructive paper by the late Mr. Stapleton.[1149] The pedigree which he -established may be thus expressed:— - - William = Beatrice. - of Arques, | - 1086. | - | - | - (1) Nigel = Emma, = (2) Manasses, - de Monville. | heiress of | _Comte_ of - | her father's | Guisnes, - | English | d. _circ._ - | fief. | 1139. - | | - Rualon = Matilda. Rose (or = Henry, - d'Avranches | Sybil), | Castellan of - (_de Abrincis_), | ob. v. p. | Bourbourg. - held part of the | | - Arques fief | | - _jure uxoris_, | | - Sheriff of Kent | | - 1130. | | - | | - +-----------+ | - | | - William (1) AUBREY = Beatrice, = (2) Baldwin, - d'Avranches, DE VERE. sole heiress. Lord of - son and heir. Ardres. - -This descent renders the above clause in the charter intelligible at -once, for it shows that Aubrey was to reunite the whole Arques fief in -his own holding _jure uxoris_. - -Mr. Stapleton, who prints the clause from the translation given by -Dugdale, justly pronounces it "extremely important, as establishing the -fact of his marriage at its date with the heiress of the barony of -Arques as well as of the _comté_ of Guisnes." With Aubrey's tenure of -this _comté_ I have dealt at p. 188. - -[1149] _Archæologia_, vol. xxxi. pp. 216-237. - - - - - APPENDIX X. - ROGER "DE RAMIS." - (See p. 181.) - - -The entries relating to the fief of this tenant _in capite_ are probably -as corrupt as any to be found in the _Liber Niger_. - -The name of the family being "de Raimes"—Latinized in this charter and -Domesday invariably as _de Ramis_—an inevitable confusion soon arose -between it and the name of their chief seat in England, Rayne, co. -Essex. Morant, in his history of Essex, identifies the two. Thus, Rayne -being entered in Domesday and in the _Liber Niger_ as "Raines," the name -of the family appears in the latter as "de Raines," "de Reines" (i. -237), "de Ramis," "de Raimis," and "de Raimes" (i. 239, 240). The -Domesday tenant was Roger "de Ramis," who was succeeded by William "de -Raimes," who was dead in 1130, when his sons Roger and Robert are found -indebted to the Crown for their reliefs and for their father's debts -(_Rot. Pip._, 31 Hen. I.). Further, if the _Liber Niger_ (i. 237, 239) -is to be trusted, there were in 1135 two Essex fiefs, held respectively -by these very sons, Roger and Robert "de Ramis." So far all is clear. -But when we come to the _cartæ_ of 1166 all is hopeless confusion. There -are, certainly, two fiefs entered in the Essex portion, but while the -_carta_ of that which is assigned to Robert "de Ramis" is intelligible, -though very corrupt, the other is assigned by an amazing blunder to -William fitz Miles, who was merely one of the under-tenants. Moreover, -the entries are so similar that they might be easily taken for variants -of the same _carta_. - -Let us, however, now turn to the Pipe-Roll of 1159 (5 Hen. II.). We -there find these entries (p. 5) under Essex:— - - "Idem vicecomes reddit Compotum de XII _l._ et XIII _s._ et IIII _d._ - pro Rogero de Ram'. - - "Idem vicecomes reddit Compotum de XII _l._ et XIII _s._ IIII _d._ pro - Ricardo de Ram'." - -They require some explanation. The sums here accounted for (though it is -not so stated) are payments towards "the great scutage" of the year at -two marks on the knight's fee. These were in most cases paid -collectively by the aggregate of knights liable. Here, luckily for us, -these two tenants paid separately. Turning the payments into marcs, and -then dividing by two, we find that each represents an assessment of nine -and a half knights. Now, we know for certain from the _Liber Niger_ (i. -240) that the assessment of one of these two fiefs was ten knights, and -that its holder was entitled to deduct from that assessment an amount -equivalent to half a knight. For such is the meaning in the language of -the Exchequer of the phrase: "feodum dimidii militis ... _quod mihi -computatur_ in X militibus quos Regi debeo." Thus we obtain the exact -amount (nine and a half knights) on which he pays in the above -Roll.[1150] - -But we can go further still. Each of the two fiefs was entitled to the -same deduction (_Liber Niger_). Both, therefore, must have been alike -assessed at ten knights. We are now on the right track. These two fiefs -in the _Liber Niger_ are not identical but distinct; they represent an -original fief, assessed at twenty knights, which has been divided into -two equal halves, each with an assessment of ten knights. And as with -the whole fief, so with some of its component parts. Dedham, for -instance, the "Delham" of Domesday (ii. 83) and the "Diham" of our -charter, was held of the lord of the fief by the service of one knight. -When the fief was divided in two, Dedham was divided too. Accordingly, -we find it mentioned in our charter (1142) as "Diham que fuit Rogeri de -Ramis, rectum ... fili_orum_ Rogeri de Ramis." It was their joint right, -because it was divided between them, just as it still appears divided in -the _cartæ_ of 1166.[1151] - -But further, why is Dedham alone mentioned in this charter? Because it -was that portion of the fief which the Crown had seized and kept, and -consequently that of which the restoration was now exacted from the -Empress. And why had the Crown seized it? Possibly as security for those -very debts, which were due to it from William "de Raimes" (_Rot. Pip._, -31 Hen. I.).[1152] - -Dedham was not the only divided manor in the fief. "Totintuna," in -Norfolk, was similarly shared, its one knight's fee being halved. This -enables us to correct an error in the _Liber Niger_. We there read (i. -237)— - - "Warinus de Totinton' medietatem I militis." - -And again (i. 239)— - - "Warinus dim' mil'. - De Todinton' feodum dimidii militis." - -In the latter case the right reading is— - - "Warinus de Todinton' dim' mil'. - Feodum dimidii militis[1153] de Hiham, quod," etc. - -Further, Robert "de Reines" is returned in both _cartæ_ as holding -(1166) a quarter of a knight's fee in each fief, "de novo fefamento," -apparently in Higham (Suffolk), not far from Dedham (Essex). This -suggests his enfeofment by the service of half a knight, and the -division of his holding when the fief was divided. It is strange that on -the Roll of 1159 he is entered as paying one marc, which would be the -exact amount payable for half a knight.[1154] - -Thus the main points have been satisfactorily established. The genealogy -is not so easy. Our charter tells us that, in 1142, the sons of Roger -"de Ramis" were the "nepotes" of Earl Aubrey. From the earl's age at the -time they could not be his grandsons: they were, therefore, his nephews, -the sons of a sister. Were they the Richard and Roger who, in 1159, held -respectively the two halves of the original fief (_Rot. Pip._, 5 -Hen. II.)? To answer this question, we must grasp the _data_ clearly. In -1130 and in 1135 the two fiefs were respectively held by Robert and -Roger, the sons of _William_. In our charter (1142) we find them, it -would seem, held by "the sons of _Roger_," probably of tender years. -This would suggest that the Robert (son of William) of 1135 had died -childless before 1142, and that his fief had been reunited to that of -his brother Roger, only, however, for the joint fief to be again divided -between Roger's sons. But the question is further complicated by some -documents relating to the church of Ardleigh, one of which is addressed -by "Robertus de Ramis filius Rogeri de Ramis" to Robert [de Sigillo], -Bishop of London, while another, addressed to the same bishop, proceeds -from Robert son of _William_ "de Ramis," apparently his uncle. In 1159 -the two fiefs reappear as held respectively by Roger and Richard "de -Ramis." In 1165 (_Rot. Pip._, 11 Hen. II.) we find them held by William -and Richard de Ramis, and thenceforth they were always known as the -fiefs of William and of Richard. The actual names of the holders of the -fiefs in 1166 (one of which is ignored by the Black Book and the other -given as Robert) are determined by the Pipe-Roll of 1168, where they are -entered as William and Richard. Thus, at length, we ascertain that the -_carta_ assigned to William "filius Milonis" was in truth that of -William "de Ramis," while that which is assigned to Robert "de Ramis" -was in truth that of Richard "de Ramis." The entry on this Pipe-Roll -relating to the latter fief throws so important a light on the _Carta_ -of 1166, that I here print the two side by side. - - [1166.] - - Hii sunt milites qui tenuerunt de feodo Roberti de Raimes die qua Rex - Henricus fuit vivus et mortuus, viz:—... Willelmus filius Jocelini II - milites Philippus Parage feodum dim. militis. Horum servitium - difforciant mihi Willelmus filius Jocelini et Philippus. Simon de - Cantilupo detinet mihi Heingeham quam tenere debeo de Rege in dominio - meo. - - [1168.] - - Ricardus de Reimis [_al._ Raimes] reddit compotum de X marcis pro X - militibus. In thesauro XXXIII sol. et IIII den. Et in dominio Regis de - Dedham i mar. Et debet IIII li. et VI sol. et VIII den. sed - calumpniatur quod Picot de Tanie[1155] habet II milites per Regem, et - Simo de Cantelu IIos, et Comes Albricus dim., et Phylippus Parage dim. - -If, as implied by our charter, the sons of Roger ("de Ramis") were -minors at the time of the Anarchy, this would account for Earl Hugh -seizing, as recorded in William's _carta_, five of his knights' fees in -the time of King Stephen (_Liber Niger_, i. 237). - -The later history of these two fiefs is one of some complexity, but the -descent of Dedham, which alone concerns our own charter, is fortunately -quite clear. Its two halves are well shown in the _Testa de Nevill_ -entry:— - - "Leonia de Stutevill tenet feodum unius militia in Byh[a]m unde debet - facere unam medietatem heredi Ricardi de Reymes et alteram medietatem - heredi Willelmi de Reymes" (i. 276). - -For this Byham, improbable as it may seem, was really the "Diham" of our -charter, _i.e._ Dedham, and the two halves of the original barony are -here described (as I explained above) as those of Richard and William. -In a survey of Richard's portion of the fief among the inquisitions of -John (_circ._ 1212),[1156] we find Leonia holding half a knight's fee in -"Dyham" of it, and in a later inquisition we find her heir, John de -Stuteville, holding the estate as "Dyhale" (_Testa_, p. 281 _b_). As -early as 1185-86 Leonia was already in possession of Dedham, as will be -seen by the extract below from the _Rotulus de Dominabus_. This entry is -one of a series which have formed the subject of keen, and even hot, -discussion. The fact that Dedham is spoken of here as her "inheritance" -has led to the hasty inference that she was heiress, or co-heiress, to -the Raimes fief. This view seems to have been started by Mr. E. Chester -Waters in a communication to _Notes and Queries_ (1872),[1157] in which, -on the strength of the entries below relating to her and to Alice de -Tani, he drew out a pedigree deriving them both from the "Roger de Ramis -of Domesday." Writing to the _Academy_ in 1885, he took great credit to -himself for his performance in _Notes and Queries_, and observed, of Mr. -Yeatman: "I must refer him to the _Rotulus de Dominabus_ and to the -Chartulary of Bocherville Abbey for the true co-heirs of the fief of -Raimes."[1158] But the extracts which follow clearly show (when combined -with the _Testa_ entry above) that neither Leonia nor Alice were the -"true co-heirs of the fief of Raimes," for they were merely -under-tenants of that fief, Leonia holding one knight's fee from the -tenants of the whole fief, and Alice two knights' fees from the tenants -of Richard's portion. - - (Lexden Hundred.) - - Uxor Roberti de Stuteville est de donatione Domini Regis, et de - parentela Edwardi de Salesburia ex parte patris, et ex parte matris est - de progenie Rogeri de Reimes. Ipsa habet j villam que vocatur Diham que - est hereditas ejus, que valet annuatim xxiiij libras. Ipsa habet j - filium et ij filias, et nescitur eorum etas. - - (Tendring Hundred.) - - Alizia de Tany est de donatione Domini Regis; terra ejus valet vij - libras, et ipsa habet v filios et ij filias, et heres ejus est xx - annorum, de progenie Rogeri de Reimes. - - (Hinckford.) - - Alicia filia Willelmi filii Godcelini quam tradidit Dominus Rex Picoto - de Tani est in donatione Domini Regis, et tenet de Domino Rege, et de - feodo Ricardi de Ramis; et terra sua valet vij libras; et ipsa habet v - filios et primogenitus est xx annorum, et ij filias. Picot de Tani - habuit dictam terram v annis elapsis, cum autumpnus venerit. - -Leonia is indeed stated to be "de progenie Rogeri de Reimes," and so is -the heir of Alice (_not_, as alleged, Alice herself), but there is -nothing to show that this was the Roger de Raimes "of Domesday." It may -have been his namesake (and grandson?) of 1130-35, or even (though -probably not) the Roger of 1159. Whether the allusion, in our charter -(1142), to Dedham being the "rectum" of the sons of Roger de Ramis, and -the fact of its being in the king's hands then and in 1166-68, had to do -with a claim by Leonia or her mother, or not, it is obvious that Leonia -did not claim, nor did Alice de Tani, to be, in any sense, the heir of -either of the above Rogers, though she may have been, as was the case so -often with under-tenants, connected with them in blood. - -[1150] This instance proves that payment was sometimes made on the net -amount due, after making such deduction, instead of being entered as -paid in full, with a subsequent entry of deduction. - -[1151] The forms "Diham," "De Hiham," and "Heham" are very confusing -from the fact that Higham also is on the border of Essex and Suffolk. - -[1152] Compare the remission by Henry II., in his charter to the second -Earl of Essex, of the Crown's lien upon certain of his manors, dating -from the time of Henry I. (see p. 241). - -[1153] The words which follow are on p. 240. - -[1154] This has a direct bearing on the very difficult question of the -assessment of the new feoffment. - -[1155] Picot de Tani (1168) stood in the shoes of William fitz Jocelin -(1166), having married his daughter Alice (_Rotulus de Dominabus_). - -[1156] Printed by Madox as from the _Liber Feudorum_. - -[1157] 4th series, vol. ix. p. 314. - -[1158] _Academy_, June 27, 1885. - - - - - APPENDIX Y. - THE FIRST AND SECOND VISITS OF HENRY II. TO ENGLAND. - (See p. 198.) - - -The dates and circumstances of these two visits are a subject of some -importance and interest. Fortunately, they can be accurately ascertained. - -It is certain that, on Henry's first visit, he landed with his uncle at -Wareham towards the close of 1142. Stephen had been besieging the -Empress in Oxford since the 26th of September,[1159] and her brother, -recalled to England by her danger, must have landed, with Henry, about -the beginning of December, for she had then been besieged more than two -months, and Christmas was at hand.[1160] This date is confirmed by -another calculation. For the earl, on landing, we are told, laid siege -to the castle of Wareham, and took it, after three weeks.[1161] But as -the flight of the Empress from Oxford coincided with, or followed -immediately after, his capture of the castle,[1162] and as that flight -took place on the eve of Christmas,[1163] after a siege of three -months,[1164] this would similarly throw back the landing of the earl at -Wareham to the beginning of December (1142). - -By a strange oversight, Dr. Stubbs, the supreme authority on his life, -makes Henry arrive in 1141, "when he was eight years old, to be trained -in arms;"[1165] whereas, as we have seen, he did not arrive till towards -the end of 1142, when he was nine years and three-quarters old. Nor, it -would seem, was there any intention that he should be then trained in -arms. This point is here mentioned because it bears on the chronology of -Gervase, as criticised by Dr. Stubbs, who, I venture to think, may have -been thus led to pronounce it, as he does, "unsound." - -On recovering Wareham, Henry and his uncle set out for Cirencester, -where the earl appointed a rendezvous of his party, with a view to an -advance on Oxford. The Empress, however, in the mean time, unable to -hold out any longer, effected her well-known romantic escape and fled to -Wallingford, where those of her supporters who ought to have been with -her when Stephen assailed her, had gathered round the stronghold of -Brian fitz Count, having decided that their forces were not equal to -raising the siege of Oxford.[1166] Thither, therefore, the earl now -hastened with his charge, and the Empress, we are told, forgot all her -troubles in the joy of the meeting with her son.[1167] - -Stephen had been as eager to relieve his beleaguered garrison at Wareham -as the earl had been, at the same time, to raise the siege of Oxford. -Neither of them, however, would attempt the task till he had finished -the enterprise he had in hand.[1168] But now that the fall of Oxford had -set Stephen free, he determined, though Wareham had fallen, that he -would at least regain possession.[1169] But the earl had profited, it -seems, by his experience of the preceding year, and Stephen found the -fortress was now too strong for him.[1170] He accordingly revenged -himself for this disappointment by ravaging the district with fire and -sword.[1171] Thus passed the earlier months of 1143. Eventually, with -his brother, the Bishop of Winchester, he marched to Wilton, where he -proceeded to convert the nunnery of St. Etheldred into a fortified post, -which should act as a check on the garrison of the Empress at -Salisbury.[1172] The Earl of Gloucester, on hearing of this, burst upon -his forces in the night, and scattered them in all directions. Stephen -himself had a narrow escape, and the enemy made a prisoner of William -Martel, his minister and faithful adherent.[1173] This event is dated by -Gervase July 1 (1143). - -I have been thus particular in dealing with this episode because, as Dr. -Stubbs rightly observes, "the chronology of Gervase is here quite -irreconcilable with that of Henry of Huntingdon, who places the capture -of William Martel in 1142."[1174] But a careful collation of Gervase's -narrative with that given in the _Gesta_ removes all doubt as to the -date, for it is certain, from the sequence of events in 1142, that at no -period of that year can Stephen and the Earl of Gloucester have been in -Wiltshire at the same time. There is, therefore, no question that the -two detailed narratives I have referred to are right in assigning the -event to 1143, and that Henry of Huntingdon, who only mentions it -briefly, has placed it under a wrong date, having doubtless confused the -two attacks (1142 and 1143) that Stephen made on Wareham.[1175] - -Henry, says Gervase (i. 131), now spent four years in England, during -which he remained at Bristol under the wing of his mighty uncle, by whom -his education was entrusted to a certain Master Mathew.[1176] A curious -reference by Henry himself to this period of his life will be found in -the _Monasticon_ (vol. vi.), where, in a charter (? 1153) to St. -Augustine's, Bristol, he refers to that abbey as one - - "quam inicio juventutis meæ beneficiis et protectione cœpi juvare et - fovere." - -It should be noticed that Gervase twice refers to Henry's stay as one of -four years (i. 125, 133), and that this statement is strictly in harmony -with those by which it is succeeded. Dr. Stubbs admits that Henry's -departure is placed by him "at the end of 1146,"[1177] and this would be -exactly four years from the date when, as we saw, he landed. Again, -Gervase goes on to state that two years and four months elapsed before -his return.[1178] This would bring us to April, 1149; and "here," as Dr. -Stubbs observes, "we get a certain date," for "Henry was certainly -knighted at Carlisle at Whitsuntide [May 22], 1149."[1179] It will be -seen then that the chronology of Gervase is thoroughly consistent -throughout.[1180] When Dr. Stubbs writes: "Gervase's chronology is -evidently unsound here, but the sequence of events is really -obscure,"[1181] he alludes to the mention of the Earl of Gloucester's -death. But it will be found, on reference to the passage, that its -meaning is quite clear, namely, that the earl died during Henry's -absence (_interea_), and in the November after his departure. And such -was, admittedly, the case. - -The second visit of Henry to England has scarcely obtained the attention -it deserved. It was fully intended, I believe, at the time, that his -arrival should give the signal for a renewal of the civil war. This is, -by Gervase (i. 140), distinctly implied. He also tells us that it was -now that Henry abandoned his studies to devote himself to arms.[1182] It -would seem, however, to be generally supposed that the sole incident of -this visit was his receiving knighthood from his great-uncle, the King -of Scots, at Carlisle. But it is at Devizes that he first appears, -charter evidence informing us of the fact that he was there, surrounded -by some leading partisans, on April 13.[1183] Again, it has, apparently, -escaped notice that the author of the _Gesta_, at some length, refers to -this second visit (pp. 127-129). His editor, at least, supposed him to -be referring to Henry's _first_ (1142) and _third_ (1153) visits; these, -in that gentleman's opinion, being evidently one and the same.[1184] -According to the _Gesta_, Henry began by attacking the royal garrisons -in Cricklade and Bourton, which would harmonize, it will be seen, -exactly with a northerly advance from Devizes. He was, however, -unsuccessful in these attempts. Among those who joined him, says -Gervase, were the Earls of Hereford and of Chester. The former duly -appears with him at Devizes in the charter to which I have referred; the -latter is mentioned by John of Hexham as being present with him at -Carlisle.[1185] This brings us to the strange story, told by the author -of the _Gesta_, that Henry, before long, deserted by his friends, was -forced to appeal to Stephen for supplies. There is this much to be said -in favour of the story, namely, that the Earl of Chester did play him -false.[1186] Moreover, the Earl of Gloucester, who is said to have -refused to help him,[1187] certainly does not appear as taking any steps -on his behalf. Lastly, it is not impossible that Stephen, whose -generosity, in thus acting, is so highly extolled by the writer, may -have taken advantage of Henry's trouble, to send him supplies on the -condition that he should abandon his enterprise and depart. It is, in -any case, certain that he did depart at the commencement of the -following year (1150).[1188] - -[1159] "Tribus diebus ante festum sancti Michaelis inopinato casu -Oxeneford concremavit, et castellum, in quo, cum domesticis militibus -imperatrix erat obsedit" (_Will. Malms._, 766). - -[1160] "Consummatis itaque in obsidione plus duobus mensibus ... -appropinquante Nativitatis Dominicæ solempnitate" (_Gervase_, i. 124). - -[1161] "Fuitque comes Robertus in obsidione illâ per tres septimanas" -(_ibid._). - -[1162] _Ibid._, i. 125; _Will. Malms._, 768. - -[1163] "Non procul a Natali" (_Hen. Hunt._, 276). - -[1164] "Tribus mensibus" (_Gesta_, p. 89). - -[1165] _Const. Hist._, i. 448; _Early Plantagenets_, p. 33. Mr. Freeman -rightly assigns his arrival to 1142, as does also Mr. Hunt (_Norman -Britain_). - -[1166] _Will. Malms._, p. 766. - -[1167] _Ibid._; _Gervase_, i. 125. - -[1168] _Will. Malms._, p. 768. Compare the state of things in 1153 -(_Hen. Hunt._, 288). - -[1169] "Deinde [after obtaining possession of Oxford] pauco dilapso -tempore, cum instructissimâ militantium manu civitatem Warham ... -advenit" (_Gesta_, p. 91). - -[1170] _Ibid._ - -[1171] _Gesta_; _Gervase_, i. 125. - -[1172] _Gesta_, p. 91. - -[1173] _Gervase_, i. 126; _Gesta_, p. 92. - -[1174] _Gervase_, i. 126, _note_. - -[1175] This episode also gave rise to another even stranger confusion, a -misreading of "Wi_n_ton" for "Wi_l_ton" having led Milner and others to -suppose that Stephen was the founder of the royal castle at Winchester. - -[1176] "Puer autem Henricus sub tutelâ comitis Roberti apud Bristoviam -degens, per quatuor annos traditus est magisterio cujusdam Mathæi -litteris imbuendus et moribus honestis ut talem decebat puerum -instituendus" (i. 125). - -[1177] i. 140, _note_. - -[1178] "Fuitque in partibus transmarinis annis duobus et mensibus -quatuor" (i. 131). - -[1179] i. 140, _note_. - -[1180] The only point, and that a small one, that could be challenged, -is that Gervase makes him land "mense Maio mediante," whereas we know -him to have been at Devizes by the 13th of April (_vide infra_). - -[1181] i. 131, _note_. - -[1182] "Postpositisque litterarum studiis exercitia cœpit militaria -frequentare." - -[1183] _Sarum Charters and Documents_ (Rolls Series), pp. 15, 16. The -witnesses are Roger, Earl of Hereford, Patrick, Earl of Salisbury, John -fitz Gilbert (the marshal), Gotso "Dinant," William de Beauchamp, Elyas -Giffard, Roger de Berkeley, John de St. John, etc. - -[1184] See his note to p. 127. Since the above passage was written, Mr. -Howlett's valuable edition of the _Gesta_ for the Rolls Series has been -published, in which he advances, with great confidence, the view that we -are indebted to its "careful author" for the knowledge of an invasion of -England by Henry fitz Empress in 1147, "unrecorded by any other -chronicler" (Chronicles: _Stephen, Henry II., Richard I._, III., -xvi.-xx. 130; IV., xxi., xxii.). I have discussed and rejected this -theory in the _English Historical Review_, October, 1890 (v. 747-750). - -[1185] _Sym. Dun._, iii. 323. Henry of Huntingdon (p. 282) states that -at Carlisle he appeared "cum occidentalibus Angliæ proceribus," and that -Stephen, fearing his contemplated joint attack with David, marched to -York, and remained there, on the watch, during all the month of August. - -[1186] "Ranulfus comes promisit cum collectis agminibus suis occurrere -illis. Qui, nichil eorum quæ condixerat prosecutus, avertit propositum -eorum" (_Sym. Dun._, ii. 323). - -[1187] The author of the _Gesta_, by a pardonable slip, speaks of the -earl as Henry's _uncle_. The then (1149) earl was, of course, his -_cousin_. It is on this slip that Mr. Howlett's theory was based. - -[1188] "Henricus autem filius Gaufridi comitis Andegaviæ ducisque -Normanniæ, et Matildis imperatricis, jam miles effectus, in Normanniam -transfretavit in principio mensis Januarii" (_Gervase_, i. 142). - - - - - APPENDIX Z. - BISHOP NIGEL AT ROME. - (See p. 209.) - - -A most interesting and instructive series of papal letters is preserved -in the valuable Cotton MS. known as Tiberius, A. vi. The earliest with -which we are here concerned are those referred to in the _Historia -Eliensis_ as obtained by Alexander and his fellows, the "nuncii" of -Nigel to the pope, in virtue of which the bishop regained his see in -1142 (_ante_, p. 162).[1189] These letters are dated April 29. As the -bishop was driven from the see early in 1140, the year to which they -belong is not, at first sight, obvious. The _Historia_ indeed appears to -place them just before his return, but its narrative is not so clear as -could be wished, nor would it imply that the bishop returned so late as -May (1142). The sequence of events I take to have been this. Nigel, when -ejected from his see (1140), fled to the Empress at Gloucester. There he -remained till her triumph in the following year (1141). He would then, -of course, regain his see, and this would account for his knights being -found in possession of the isle when Stephen recovered his throne. The -king, eager to reassert his rights and to avoid another fenland revolt, -would send the two earls to Ely (1142) to regain possession of its -strongholds. The bishop, now once more an exile, and despairing of -Maud's fortunes, would turn for help to the pope, and obtain from him -these letters commanding his restoration to his see. I should therefore -assign them to April 29, 1142. This would account for the expression -"per longa tempora" in the letter to Stephen. They could not belong to -1141, when the Empress was in power, and the above expression would not -be applicable in the year 1140. - -The following is the gist of the letter to Stephen:— - - "Serenitati tue rogando mandamus quatinus dignitates et libertates.... - Venerabili quoque fratri nostro Nigello eiusdem loci episcopo in - recuperandis possessionibus ecclesie sue injuste distractis consilium - et auxilium prebeas. Nec pro eo quod ecclesia ipsa sua bona jam per - longa tempora perdidit, justitie sue eam sustinere aliquod preiuditium - patiaris" (fol. 114). - -To his brother, the Bishop of Winchester, Innocent writes thus:— - - "Rogando mandamus et mandando precipimus quatinus sententiam quam - venerabilis frater noster Nigellus Elyensis episcopus in eos qui - possessiones ecclesie sue iniuste et per violentiam detinent - rationabiliter promulgavit firmiter observetis et observari per vestras - parrochias pariter faciatis" (fol. 113 _b_). - -A letter (also from the Lateran) of the same date to Nigel himself -excuses his presence and that of the Abbot of Thorney at a council. A -subsequent letter ("data trans Tyberim") of the 5th of October, -addressed to Theobald and the English bishops, deals with the expulsion -and restitution of Nigel, and insists on his full restoration. - -The next series of letters are from Pope Lucius, and belong to May 24, -1144, being written on the occasion of Nigel's visit (_ante_, p. 208). -Of these there are five in all. To Stephen Lucius writes as follows:— - - "Venerabilis frater noster Nigellus Elyensis episcopus quamvis - quibusdam criminibus in presentia nostra notatus fuerit, nec tamen - convictus neque confessus est. Unde nos ipsum cum gratia nostra ad - sedem propriam remittentes nobilitati tue mandamus ut eum pro beati - Petri et nostra reverentia honores, diligas, nec ipse sibi vel ecclesie - sue iniuriam vel molestiam inferas nec ab aliis inferri permittas. Si - qua etiam ... ab hominibus tuis ei ablata sunt cum integritate restitui - facias" (fol. 117). - -The above "crimina" are those referred to in the _Historia Eliensis_ as -brought forward at the Council of London in 1143:— - - "Quidam magni autoritatis et prudentiæ visi adversus Dominum Nigellum - Episcopum parati insurrexerunt: illum ante Domini Papæ præsentiam - appellaverunt, sinistra ei objicientes plurima, maxime quod seditiones - in ipso concitaverat regno, et bona Ecclesie sue in milites - dissipaverat; aliaque ei convicia blasphemantes improperabant" (p. 622). - -A second letter of the same date "Ad clerum elyensem de condempnatione -Symonie Vitalis presbyteri" deals with the case of Vitalis, a priest in -Nigel's diocese, who had been sentenced to deprivation of his living, -for simony, and whose appeal to the Council of London in 1143 had been -favourably received by the legate.[1190] The pope had himself reheard -the case, and now confirmed Nigel's decision:— - - "Dilectis filiis Rodberto Abbati Thorneie et capitulo elyensi salutem - etc. Notum vobis fieri quia iuditium super causa, videlicet symonia, - Vitalis presbyteri in synodo elyensi habitum in nostra presentia - discussum est et retractatum. Quod nos rationabile cognoscentes - apostolice sedis auctoritate firmavimus," etc., etc. (fol. 117). - -Then come two letters, also of the same date, one to Theobald and the -English bishops, the other to the Archbishop of Rouen, both to the same -effect, beginning, "Venerabilis frater noster Nigellus elyensis -episcopus ad sedem apostolicam veniens, nobis conquestus est quod," etc. -(fol. 116 _b_):[1191] the fifth document of the 24th of May (1144) is a -general confirmation to Ely of all its privileges and possessions (fols. -114 _b_-116 _b_). - -Last of all is the letter referring to Geoffrey de Mandeville, which -must, from internal evidence, have been written in reply to a letter -from Nigel after his return to England (_ante_, p. 215). - -[1189] "Et negotium strenuissime agentes, acceperunt ab excellentiâ -Romanæ dignitatis ad Archiepiscopum et episcopos Angliæ et ad -Rothomagensem Archiepiscopum literas de restituendo Nigello episcopo in -sedem suam" (_Hist. Eliensis_, p. 621). - -[1190] "Presbyter quidam Vitalis nomine conquestus est coram omnibus -quod Dominus Elyensis episcopus eum non judiciali ordine de suâ Ecclesiâ -expulerit. Huic per omnia ille Legatus favebat" (_Hist. Eliensis_, p. -622). - -[1191] See _ante_, p. 215, for Nigel's complaint. - - - - - APPENDIX AA. - "TENSERIE." - (See p. 215.) - - -The mention of "tenseriæ" in the letter of Lucius is peculiarly welcome, -because (in its Norman-French form) it is the very word employed by the -Peterborough chronicler.[1192] As I have pointed out in the -_Academy_,[1193] the same Latin form is found in the agenda of the -judicial iter in 1194: "de prisis et _tenseriis_ omnium ballivorum" (_R. -Hoveden_, iii. 267), while the Anglo-Norman "tenserie" is employed by -Jordan Fantosme, who, writing of the burgesses of Northampton (1174), -tells us that David of Scotland "ne pot _tenserie_ de eus aver." He also -illustrates the use of the verb when he describes how the Earl of -Leicester, landing in East Anglia, "la terre vait _tensant_.... E ad -_tensé_ la terre cum il en fut bailli." The Latin form of the verb was -"tensare," as is shown by the records of the Lincolnshire eyre in 1202 -(Maitland's _Select Pleas of the Crown_, p. 19), where it is used of -extorting toll from vessels as they traversed the marshes. A reference -to the closing portion of the Lincolnshire survey in Domesday will show -the very same offence presented by the jurors of 1086. - -To the same number of the _Academy_, Mr. Paget Toynbee contributed a -letter quoting some examples from Ducange of the use of _tenseria_, one -of them taken from the Council of London in 1151: "Sancimus igitur ut -Ecclesiæ et possessiones ecclesiasticæ ab operationibus et exactionibus, -quas vulgo _tenserias_ sive tallagia vocant, omnino liberæ permaneant, -nec super his eas aliqui de cætero inquietare præsumant." The other is -taken from the Council of Tours[1194] (1163), and is specially valuable -because, I think, it explains how the word acquired its meaning. The -difficulty is to deduce the sense of "robbery" from a verb which -originally meant "to protect" or "to defend," but this difficulty is -beautifully explained by our own word "blackmail," which similarly meant -money extorted under pretence of protection or defence. The "defensio" -of the Tours Council supports this explanation, as does the curious -story told by the monks of Abingdon,[1195] that during the Anarchy under -Stephen— - - "Willelmus Boterel constabularius de Wallingford, pecunia accepta a - domno Ingulfo abbate, res ecclesiæ Abbendonensis a suo exercitu se - defensurum promisit. Sponsionis ergo suæ immemor, in villam Culeham, - quæ huic cænobio adjacet, quicquid invenire potuit, deprædavit. Quo - audito, abbas ... admirans quomodo quod tueri deberet, fure nequior - diripuisset" etc. - -William died excommunicate for this, but his brother Peter made some -slight compensation later.[1196] It was not unusual for conscience or -the Church to extort more or less restitution for lawless conduct, as, -indeed, in the case of Geoffrey de Mandeville and his son. So, too, Earl -Ferrers made a grant to Burton Abbey "propter dampna a me et meis -Ecclesiæ predictæ illata" (cf. p. 276, _n._ 3), previous to going on -pilgrimage to S. Jago de Compostella—an early instance of a pilgrimage -thither.[1197] - -While on this subject, it may be as well to add that the grant by -Robert, Earl of Leicester, to the see of Lincoln in restitution for -wrongs,[1198] may very possibly refer to his alleged share in the arrest -of the bishops (1139), and so confirm the statement of Ordericus -Vitalis.[1199] - -The complaint of the same English Chronicle that the lawless barons -"cruelly oppressed the wretched men of the land with castle works" is -curiously confirmed by a letter from Pope Eugenius to four of the -prelates, July 23, 1147:— - - "Religiosorum fratrum Abbendoniæ gravem querelam accepimus quod - Willelmus Martel, Hugo de Bolebec, Willelmus de Bellocampo, Johannes - Marescallus, et eorum homines, et plures etiam alii parochiani vestri, - possessiones eorum violenter invadunt, et bona ipsorum rapiunt et - distrahunt et _indebitas castellorum operationes ab eis exigunt_."[1200] - -With characteristic agreement upon this point, William Martel, who -served the king, John the marshal, who followed the Empress, and William -de Beauchamp, who had joined both, were at one in the evil work. - -[1192] "Hi læiden gæildes on the tunes ... and clepeden it _tenserie_" -(ed. Thorpe, i. 382). Mr. Thorpe, the Rolls Series editor, took upon -himself to alter the word to _censerie_. - -[1193] No. 1001, p. 37 (July 11, 1891). - -[1194] "De Cæmeteriis et Ecclesiis, sive quibuslibet possessionibus -ecclesiasticis tenserias dari prohibemus, ne pro Ecclesia vel cæmeterii -defensione fidei sui Clerici sponsionem interponant." Compare the -passage from the _Chronicle of Ramsey_, p. 218 _n._, _ante_. - -[1195] _Abingdon Cartulary_, ii. 231. - -[1196] William and Peter Boterel were related to Brian Fitz Count (of -Wallingford) through his father. They both attest a charter of his wife, -Matilda "de Wallingford," to Oakburn Priory. - -[1197] _Burton Cartulary_, p. 50. A pilgrimage to this shrine is alluded -to in a charter (of this reign) by the Earl of Chester to his brother -the Earl of Lincoln, "in eodem anno quo ipsemet ... redivit de itinere -S. Jacobi Apostoli." - -[1198] "Robertus Comes Leg' Radulfo vicecomiti. Sciatis me pro -satisfactione, ac dampnorum per me seu per meas Ecclesiæ Lincoln' -Episcopo illatorum restitutione, dedisse ... præfatæ Ecclesiæ -Lincolnensi et Alexandro Episcopo," etc. (_Remigius' Register_ at -Lincoln, p. 37). - -[1199] See his life by me in _Dictionary of National Biography_. - -[1200] _Cartulary of Abingdon_, ii. 200, 543. - - - - - APPENDIX BB. - THE EMPRESS'S CHARTER TO GEOFFREY RIDEL. - (See p. 234.) - - -This instrument, which is referred to in the text, belongs to the -Devizes series of the charters granted by the Empress, and is enrolled -among some deeds relating to the baronial family of Basset.[1201] As -every charter of the Empress is of interest, while this one possesses -special features, it is here given _in extenso_:— - - M. Imperatrix Henrici Regis filia et Anglorum Domina, et H. filius - Ducis Normannorum, Archiep. Epis. Abb. Comit. Baron. Justic. Vicecom. - Minist. et omnibus fidelibus suis Francis et Anglis tocius Anglie et - Normannie salutem. Sciatis me reddidisse et concessisse Galfrido Ridel - filio Ricardi Basset totam hereditatem suam et omnia recta sua - ubicunque ea ratione poteret ostendere sive in Normannia sive in Anglia - et totam terram quam pater eius Ricardus Basset habuit et tenuit jure - hereditario de Rege Henrico, vel de quocunque tenuisset, in Normannia - sive in Anglia, ad tenendum in feodo et hereditate. Et totam terram - Galfridi Ridel avi sui quamcunque habuit et tenuit jure hereditario, In - Anglia sive in Normannia de Rege Henrico, vel de quocunque tenuisset, - ad tenendum in feudo et hereditate sibi et heredibus suis de nobis et - heredibus nostris. Quare volumus et firmiter precipimus quod bene et in - pace et quiete et honorifice teneat in bosco et aquis et in viis et - semitis in pratis et pasturis in omnibus locis cum soch et sache cum - tol et them et infangefethef et cum omnibus consuetudinibus et - quietudinibus et libertatibus cum quibus antecessores eius tenuerunt. - T[estibus]. Cancellario et Roberto Comite Glovernie et Galfrido Comite - Essex et Roberto filio Reg[is] et Walchelino Maminot [et] Rogero filio - (_sic_) Apud Diuis[as]. - -The charter with which this one ought to be closely compared is that -granted, also at Devizes, to Humfrey de Bohun, early in 1144.[1202] -These two are the only instances I have yet met with of _joint_ charters -from the Empress and her son. It may not be unjustifiable to infer that -Henry was henceforth included as a partner in his mother's charters. If -so, it would follow that her charters in which he is not mentioned are -probably of earlier date.[1203] The second point suggested by a -comparison of these charters is that here Henry figures as the son of -the Duke of the Normans, while in the other document he is merely son of -the Count of the Angevins. This is at once explained by the fact that -her husband had now won his promotion (1144) from Count of the Angevins -to Duke of the Normans, an explanation which confirms my remarks on the -charter to Humfrey de Bohun.[1204] Thus this charter to Geoffrey Ridel -must be later than the spring of 1144, while anterior to Henry's -departure about the end of 1146. As the (Coucher) charter to Geoffrey de -Mandeville (junior) is attested by Humfrey as "Dapifer," that, also, may -be placed subsequent to Humfrey's own. Again, in the charter here -printed, we have proof that Richard Basset was dead at the time of its -grant, if not before. There has been hitherto no clue as to the time of -his decease, though Foss makes him die, by a strange confusion, in 1154. -Nor is it unimportant to observe that the Bassets and Ridels were -typical members of that official class which Henry I. had fostered, and -which appears to have strongly favoured his daughter's cause. Lastly, in -the re-grant of this charter, by Duke Henry at Wallingford (1153), we -have a valuable illustration of his practice in ignoring his mother's -charters, even when sanctioned by himself in his youth. For, although -the terms of the instrument are reproduced with exactitude, the grant is -made _de novo_, without reference to any former charter.[1205] - -[1201] _Sloane_, xxxi. 4 (No. 48). - -[1202] See my _Ancient Charters_ (Pipe-Roll Society), pp. 45-47. There -are two Devizes charters of the Empress, besides this one, not included -in Mr. Birch's collection, namely, her grant of Aston (by the Wrekin) to -Shrewsbury Abbey, and her general confirmation to that house. They are -both attested by Earl Reginald, William fitz Alan, Robert de -Dunstanville, and "Goceas" de Dinan, but are later than 1141, to which -date Mr. Eyton and others assign them. - -[1203] In the second charter of the Empress to Geoffrey de Mandeville -the elder (1142) we have the first sign of a desire to secure her son's -adhesion. - -[1204] _Ancient Charters_, p. 47. - -[1205] _Sloane_, xxxi. 4. The witnesses are Randulf Earl of Chester, -Reginald Earl of Cornwall, William Earl of Gloucester, the Earl of -Hereford, Richard de Humez ("duhumesco"), constable, Philip de -Columbers, Ralph Basset, Ralph "Walensis," Hugh de "Hamslep." - - - - - EXCURSUS. - THE CREATION OF THE EARLDOM OF GLOUCESTER. - - -One of the problems in English history as yet, it would seem, unsolved, -is that of the date at which Henry I. conferred on his natural son -Robert the earldom of Gloucester. The great part which Robert played in -the eventful struggles of his time, the fact that this was, in all -probability, almost the only earldom created in the course of this reign -(1100-1135), and the importance of ascertaining the date of its creation -as fixing that of many an otherwise doubtful record, all combine to -cause surprise that the problem remains unsolved. - -Brooke wrote that the earldom of Gloucester was conferred on Robert "in -the eleventh year of his father's reign," and his critic, the argus-eyed -Vincent, in his _Discoverie of Errours_, did not question the statement. -As to Dugdale, he evaded the problem. Ignorance on the point is frankly -confessed in the _Reports on the Dignity of a Peer_; while Mr. Freeman, -so far as I can find, has also deemed discretion the better part of -valour. - -Three dates, however, have been suggested for this creation. - -The first is 1109. This may be traced to Sandford (1707) and Rapin -(1724), who took it from the rhyming chronicle assigned to Robert of -Gloucester:— - - "And of the kynges crownement in the [ninthe][1206] yere, The vorst - Erle of Gloucestre thus was mayd there." - -This date was revived by Courthope in his well-known edition (1857) of -the _Historic Peerage_ of Sir Harris Nicolas (by whom no date had been -assigned to the creation). It may be said, by inference, to have -received the sanction of the authorities at the British Museum. - -The second is 1119. This suspiciously resembles an adaptation of the -preceding date, but may have been suggested, and in the case of Mr. -Clark (_vide infra_) probably was, by reading Dugdale wrong.[1207] It -seems to have first appeared in a footnote to William of Malmesbury -(1840), as edited for the English Historical Society by the late Sir -Thomas Duffus (then Mr.) Hardy. It is there stated that Robert "was -created Earl of Gloucester in 1119" (vol. ii. p. 692). No authority -whatever is given for this statement, but the same date is adopted by -Mr. Clark (1878), who asserts that "Robert certainly bore it [the title] -1119, 20th Henry I." (_Arch. Journ._, xxxv. 5); by Mr. Doyle (1886) in -his valuable _Official Baronage_ (ii. 9); and lastly (1887) by Mr. Hunt -in his _Bristol_ (p. 17). In none of these cases, however, is the source -of the statement given.[1208] - -In the mean while, a third date, viz. shortly before Easter (April 2), -1116, was advanced with much assurance. In his essay on the _Survey of -Lindsey_ (1882), Mr. Chester Waters wrote: - - "We know that the earldom was conferred on him before Easter, 1116, for - he attested as earl the royal charter in favour of Tewkesbury Abbey, - which was executed at Winchester on the eve of the king's embarkation - for Normandy" (p. 3). - -The date attributed to this charter having aroused the curiosity of -antiquaries, the somewhat singular discovery was made that it could also -be found in the MSS. of Mr. Eyton, then lately deceased.[1209] For the -time, however, Mr. Waters enjoyed the credit of having solved an ancient -problem, and "the ennobling of Robert fitz Roy in 1116" was accepted by -no less an authority than Mr. Elton.[1210] - -I propose to show that these three dates are all alike erroneous, and -that the Tewkesbury charter is spurious. - -Let us first observe that there is no evidence for the belief that -Robert received his earldom at the time of his marriage to the heiress -of Robert fitz Hamon. There is, on the contrary, a probability that he -did not. I do not insist on the Tewkesbury charter (_Mon. Ang._, ii. -66), in which the king speaks of the demesne of Robert fitz Hamon as -being now "Dominium Roberti filii mei," for we have more direct evidence -in a charter of Robert to the church of Rochester, in which he confirmed -the gifts made by his wife and father, not as Robert Earl of Gloucester, -but merely as "Ego Rodbertus Henrici Regis filius." - -We must further dismiss late authorities, in which, as we might expect, -we find a tendency to throw back the creation of a title to an early -period of the grantee's life. We cannot accept as valid evidence the -rhymes of Robert of Gloucester (_circa_ 1300), the confusion of later -writers, or the assumptions of the fourteenth-century _Chronicque de -Normandie_, in which last work Robert is represented as already "Earl of -Gloucester" at the battle of Tinchebrai (1106). - -The only chronicle that we can safely consult is that of the Continuator -of William of Jumièges, and this, unfortunately, tells us nothing as to -the date of the creation, which, however, it seems to place some time -after the marriage. It is worth mentioning that the writer's words— - - "Præterea, quia parum erat filium Regis ingentia prædia possidere - absque nomine et honore alicujus publicæ dignitatis, dedit illi pater - pius comitatum Gloecestre" (Lib. viii. cap. 29, ed. Duchesne, p. 306). - -are suspiciously suggestive of Robert of Gloucester's famous story that -Robert's bride refused to marry him "bote he adde an tuo name." It would -be very satisfactory if we could thus trace the story to its source, the -more so as the chronicle is not among those from which Robert is -supposed to have drawn. - -We are, therefore, left dependent on the evidence of charters alone. -That is to say, we must look to the styles given to Robert the king's -son, to learn when he first became Earl of Gloucester. - -His earliest attestation is, to all appearance, that which occurs in a -charter of 1113. This charter is printed in the appendix to the edition -of Ordericus Vitalis by the Société de l'Histoire de France,[1211] and -as all the circumstances connected with its grant, together with the -names of the chief witnesses, are given by Ordericus in the body of his -work,[1212] there cannot be the slightest doubt, or even hesitation, as -to its date.[1213] In the text he is styled "Rodbertus regis filius," -and in the charter "Rodbertus filius regis," his name being given, it -should be noticed, last but one. The next attestation, in order, it -would seem, is found in a writ of Henry I. tested at Reading, some time -before Easter, 1116, to judge from the presence of "Rannulfus -Meschinus."[1214] For Randulf became Earl of Chester by the death of his -cousin Richard, when returning to England with the king in November, -1120.[1215] - -We next find Robert in Normandy with his father. He there attests a -charter to Savigny, his name ("Robertus filius regis") coming -immediately after those of the earls (in this case Stephen, Count of -Mortain, and Richard, Earl of Chester), that being the position in -which, till his creation, it henceforth always figures. This charter -passed in 1118, probably in the autumn of the year.[1216] Robert's next -appearance is at the battle of Brémulé (or Noyon), August 20, 1119. -Ordericus refers to his presence thus:— - - "Ibi fuerunt duo filii ejus Rodbertus et Ricardus, milites egregii, et - tres consules," etc., etc. (iv. 357). - -This is certainly opposed to the view that Robert was already an earl, -for he is carefully distinguished from the three earls ("tres consules") -who were present, and is classed with his brother Richard, who never -became an earl. We must assign to about the same date the confirmation -charter of Colchester Abbey, which is known to us only from the -unpublished cartulary now in the possession of Lord Cowper. Robert's -name here comes immediately after those of the earls, and his style is -"Robertus filius henrici regis Anglorum." - -This charter suggests a very important question. That its form, in the -cartulary, is that in which it was originally granted we may confidently -deny. At the same time, the circumstances by which its grant was -accompanied are told by the monks in great detail and in the form of a -separate narrative. Indeed, on that narrative is based the belief, so -dear to Mr. Freeman's heart, that Henry I. was, more or less, familiar -with the English tongue. Moreover, it is suggested by internal evidence -that the charter, as we have it, is based on an originally genuine -record. Now, the accepted practice is to class charters as genuine, -doubtful, or spurious, "doubtful" meaning only that they are either -genuine or spurious, but that it is not quite certain to which of these -classes they belong. For my part I see no reason why there should not be -an indefinite number of stages between an absolutely genuine record and -one that is a sheer forgery. It was often, whether truly or falsely, -alleged (we may have our own suspicions) that the charter originally -granted had been lost, stolen, or burnt. In the case of this particular -charter, its predecessor was said to have been lost; at Leicester, a -riot was made accountable; at Carlisle a fire. In these last two cases, -those who were affected were allowed to depose to the tenor of the lost -charter. In the case of that which we are now considering, I have -recorded in another place[1217] my belief that the story was probably a -plot of the monks anxious to secure an enlarged charter. Of course, -where a charter was really lost, and it was thought necessary to supply -its place either by a pseudo-original document, or merely in a -cartulary, deliberate invention was the only resource. But, in such -cases, it was almost certain that, in the days when the means of -historical information were, compared with our own, non-existent, the -forger would betray himself at once by the names in his list of -witnesses. There was, however, as I imagine, another class of forged -charters. This comprised those cases in which the original had not been -lost, but in which it was desired to substitute for that original a -charter with more extensive grants. Here the genuine list of witnesses -might, of course, be copied, and with a little skill the interpolations -or alterations might be so made as to render detection difficult, if not -impossible. I speak, of course, of a cartulary transcript; in an actual -charter, the document and seal would greatly assist detection. But I -would suggest that there might be another class to be considered. This -Colchester charter is a case in point. The impression it conveys to my -mind is that of a genuine charter, adapted by a systematic process of -florid and grandiloquent adornment to a depraved monkish taste. In -short, I look on this charter as not, of necessity, a "forgery," that -is, intended to deceive, but as possibly representing the results of a -process resembling that of illumination. Such an hypothesis may appear -daring, but it is based, we must remember, on a mental attitude, on, so -to speak, an historic conscience, radically different from our own. -After all, it is but in the present generation that the sacredness of an -original record has been recognized as it should. Such a conception was -wholly foreign to the men of the Middle Ages. I had occasion to allude -to this essential fact in a study on "The Book of Howth," when calling -attention to the strange liberties allowed themselves by the early -translators of the _Expugnatio Hiberniæ_. Geoffrey of Monmouth -illustrates the point. Looking not only at him but his contemporaries in -the twelfth century, we cannot but compare the impertinent obtrusion of -their pseudo-classical and, still more, their incorrigible Biblical -erudition, with the same peculiar features in such charters as those of -which I speak. Another remarkable parallel, I think, may be found in the -_Dialogus de Scaccario_. Observe there the opening passage, together -with the persistent obtrusion of texts, and compare them with the -general type of forged, spurious, or "doctored" charters. The -resemblance is very striking. It was, one might say, the systematic -practice of the monkish forger or adapter to make the royal or other -grantor in such charters as these indulge in a homily from the monkish -standpoint on the obligation to make such grants, and to quote texts in -support of that thesis. Once viewed in this light, such passages are as -intelligible as they are absurd. - -But, in addition to, and distinct from, these stilted moralizations, is -the process which I have ventured to compare with illumination or even -embroidery. This was, in most cases, so overdone, as to bury the simple -phraseology of the original, if genuine, instrument beneath a pile of -grandiloquence. Take for instance this clause from the Colchester -charter in question: - - "Data Rothomagi deo gratias solemniter et feliciter Anno ab incarn' - dom' MCXIX. Quo nimirum anno prætaxatus filius regis Henrici Will's rex - designatus puellam nobilissimam filiam Fulconis Andegavorum comitis - Mathildam nomine Luxouii duxit uxorem." - -Now, if we compare this clause with that appended to an original charter -of some ten years later, we there read thus:— - - "Apud Wintoniam eodem anno, inter Pascham et Pentecostem, quo Rex duxit - in uxorem filiam ducis de Luvain."[1218] - -This peculiar method of dating charters which is found in this reign -suggests that the genuine charter to Colchester would contain a similar -clause (if any),[1219] beginning "Apud Rothomagum eodem anno quo," etc., -etc. As it stands in the cartulary, the original clause has been treated -by the monkish scribe much as an original passage in a chronicle might -be worked into his text, in the present day, by an historian of the -"popular" school.[1220] But wide and interesting though the conclusions -are to which such an hypothesis might lead, I must confine myself here -to pointing out that the list of witnesses, in its minutest details, is -apparently beyond impeachment. Specially would I refer to four names, -those of the clerks of the king's chapel. It is rare, indeed, to find so -complete and careful a list. The four "capellani regis," as they are -here styled, are (1) John de Bayeux;[1221] (2) Nigel de Caine;[1222] (3) -Robert "Pechet;"[1223] (4) Richard "custos sigilli regis."[1224] The -remarkable and, we may fairly assume, undesigned coincidence between the -list of witnesses attesting this charter, and that of the king's -followers at the battle of Brémulé (fought, there is reason to believe, -within a few weeks of its grant), as given by Ordericus Vitalis, ought -to be carefully noted, confirming, as it obviously does, the authority -of both the lists, and consequently my hypothesis that the charter in -the Colchester cartulary represents a genuine original record belonging -to the date alleged.[1225] - -It is also, perhaps, worth notice that Eadmer applies to William "the -Ætheling" the very same term as that which meets us in this charter, -namely, "designatus."[1226] - -Approaching now the question of date, we note that the charter must have -been subsequent to the marriage at Lisieux (June, 1119) to which it -refers, and previous to the Council of Rheims (October 20, 1119), which -Archbishop Thurstan attended, and from which he did not return.[1227] We -know that between these dates Henry was in Rouen at least once, viz. at -the end of September (1119),[1228] so that we can determine the date of -the charter within exceedingly narrow limits. - -The remaining charters which we have now to examine are all subsequent -to the king's return and the disaster of the White Ship (November 25, -1120). - -The desolate king had spent his Christmas (1120) in comparative -seclusion at Brampton, attended by his nephew, Theobald of Blois.[1229] -In January (1121) he came south to attend a great council before his -approaching marriage. By Eadmer and the Continuator of Florence of -Worcester, the assembling of the council is assigned to the Epiphany -(January 6, 1121). Richard "de Sigillo" was on the following day -(January 7) elected to the see of Hereford, and was consecrated nine -days later (January 16, 1121) at Lambeth.[1230] - -To this council we may safely assign a charter in the British Museum -(Harley, 111, B. 46),[1231] of value for its list of witnesses, -twenty-six in number. It gives us the names of no fewer than thirteen -bishops, by whom, in addition to the primate, this council was -attended.[1232] Mr. Walter de Gray Birch, by whom so much has been done -to encourage the study of charters and of seals, has edited this record -in one of his instructive sphragistic monographs.[1233] He has, however, -by an unfortunate inadvertence, omitted about half a dozen -witnesses,[1234] while his two limits of date are not quite correct; for -Richard was consecrated Bishop of Hereford, not on "the 16th of January, -1120," but on the 16th of January, 1121 (N.S.), and Archbishop Ralph -died, not "19th September," but 19th October (xiv. kal. Novembris), -1122. Thus the limit for this charter would be, not "from April, 1120, -to September, 1122," but from January, 1121, to October, 1122. Mr. Birch -further observes that "the date may be taken very shortly after the -consecration of Richard." Here again, I must reluctantly differ, for by -the practice of the time, the grant of the temporalities did not come -after, but before, the consecration. The charter, in short, as I -observed above, can be safely assigned to the council of January, 1121. - -In it the subject of this paper attests as "Roberto filio Regis." His -name occurs in its right place immediately after those of the earls, -who, oddly enough, are in this charter the same two, at least in -title,[1235] after whom he had attested the Savigny charter in -1118.[1236] - -The next charters in my chain of evidence are two which passed at -Windsor. We are told by Simeon of Durham that at the time of the king's -marriage (January 29-30, 1121) there was gathered together at Windsor a -council of the whole realm.[1237] To this council I assign a charter -printed by Madox from the original among the archives of Westminster -Abbey.[1238] I am led to do so because, firstly, the names of the -witnesses are all found, with three exceptions, in charters belonging to -this date; second, the said three exceptions are those of Count Theobald -of Blois, who had, we know, joined the king not long before, of Earl -David, from Scotland, whose visit would be due to the occasion of his -brother-in-law's wedding, and of the Archbishop of Rouen, whose presence -may be also thus accounted for;[1239] third, the attestation of two -archbishops with four bishops suggests the presence of a "concilium," as -described by Simeon of Durham. - -If this is the date of the charter in question, it may also be that of -another charter, also to Westminster Abbey,[1240] for its eleven -witnesses are all found among those of the preceding charter. In both -these cases "Robert, the king's son," attests in his regular place -immediately after the earls.[1241] - -We now come to an original charter in every way of the highest -importance.[1242] I have already quoted its dating clause,[1243] which -proves it to have been executed at Winchester, between Easter (April 10) -and Pentecost (May 29), 1121. Moreover, as the king spent his Easter at -Berkeley and his Whitsuntide at Westminster,[1244] the limit of date, as -a matter of fact, is somewhat narrower still. Here again Robert attests -("Rob[erto] fil[io] Regis") at the head of all the laity beneath the -rank of earl. - -The last charter which I propose to adduce, as attested by "Robert, the -king's son," is one which, in all probability, may be assigned to this -same occasion, for the whole of its thirteen witnesses had attested the -previous charter, with the exception of two bishops, whose presence can -be otherwise accounted for,[1245] and of William de Warenne (Earl of -Surrey). - -The importance of this charter is not so great as that of those adduced -above, for it is known to us only from the Rymer Collectanea (_Add. -MSS._, 4573), of which an abstract is appended to the Fœdera.[1246] -Moreover, in one minute detail its accuracy may be fairly impugned, for -"Willielmo de Warennâ" clearly stands for "Willielmo _Comite_ de -Warennâ," Nor, indeed, is its evidence needed, the proof being complete -without it. Yet, as the charter (_quantum valeat_) has been assigned, I -think, to a wrong date, the point may be worth glancing at. In the Rymer -Collectanea the date is fixed as "1115" (or "16 Henry I.") on the ground -that it belongs to the same date as a charter of Henry I. to Bardney, -which was granted "Apud Wynton' xvj. anno postquam rex recepit regnum -Angliæ."[1247] Mr. Eyton also, in a late addition to his MS. Itinerary -of Henry I.,[1248] wrote that the presence of three of the bishops -(Lincoln, Salisbury, and St David's) suggested "the latter part of -1115." But we must remember that the Bardney charter is known to us only -from a late Inspeximus,[1249] and that the dating clause is somewhat -suspicious. Yet even if the version were entirely genuine, the fact -remains that the list of witnesses has only four names[1250] in common -with that in the charter I am discussing, which has, on the contrary, no -less than ten in common with those in the original charter of -1121.[1251] I cannot, therefore, but fix on 1121 as a far more probable -date for its grant than 1115-1116. - -This, however, as I said, is but a small matter. The really important -fact is this: that we have a continuous chain of evidence, proving that -"Robert, the king's son," was not yet Earl of Gloucester, at least as -late as April-May, 1121. - -Against this weight of accumulated evidence what is there? Absolutely -nothing but that Tewkesbury charter, which is quoted from Dugdale's -_Monasticon_, where it is quoted from a mere _Inspeximus_ of the 10th -Henry IV. (1408-9), some three centuries after its alleged date![1252] I -need scarcely say that this miserable evidence for the assertion that -Robert was Earl of Gloucester, at Easter, 1116, is simply annihilated -and crumpled up by the proof afforded by original charters that he had -not yet received the earldom even five years later on (1121). - -It is, however, satisfactory to be able to add that, even independent of -this rebutting evidence, the charter itself, on its own face, bears -witness of its spurious character. Mr. Eyton, indeed, was slightly -uneasy about two of the witnesses, it being, he thought, as unusually -early for an attestation of Brian fitz Count, as it was late for that of -Hamo Dapifer.[1253] Yet he was not, on that account, led to reject it; -indeed, he not only accepted, but unfortunately built upon its evidence. -He never, however, we must remember, committed his conclusions to print, -so that it may be urged with perfect justice that he might have -reconsidered and changed his views before he made them public. Not so -with Mr. Chester Waters. Announcing the discovery which Mr. Eyton had so -strangely anticipated, he wrote— - - "We know that the earldom [of Gloucester] was conferred on him [Robert] - before Easter, 1116, for he attested as earl the royal charter in - favour of Tewkesbury Abbey which was executed at Winchester, on the eve - of the king's embarkation for Normandy (_Monasticon_, vol. ii. p. - 66)."[1254] - -When Mr. Waters thus wrote, had he observed that in this charter the -king's style appears as "Henr' dei gratia Rex Angl' _et dux Norm'_"? And -if he had done so, if he had glanced at the charter on which he based -his case, is it possible that he was so unfamiliar with the charters and -the writs of Henry I., as not to be aware that such a style, of itself, -throws doubt upon the charter?[1255] To those who remember that he -confessed (in reply to certain criticisms of my own) to having -"carelessly repeated a statement which comes from a discredited -authority,"[1256] and that he announced a discovery as to the meeting of -Henry I. and Robert of Normandy, in 1101,[1257] which, as I proved, was -based only on his own failure to read a charter of this reign -aright,[1258] such a correction as this will come as no surprise. - -Having now shown that Robert fitz Roy was not yet Earl of Gloucester in -April-May, 1121, I proceed to show that he was earl in June, 1123. - -The charter by which I prove this is granted "apud Portesmudam in -transfretatione meâ."[1259] It is dated in the thirty-first Report of -the Deputy Keeper of the Records (in the calendar of these charters -drawn up by the late Sir William Hardy) as "1115-1123." Its exact date -can, however, be determined, and is 3-10 June, 1123. This I prove thus. -The parties addressed are Theowulf, Bishop of Worcester (who died -October 20, 1123), and Robert, Earl of Gloucester (who was not yet earl -in April-May, 1121). These being the limits of date, the only occasion -within these limits on which the king "transfretavit" was in June, 1123. -And we learn from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle that the king, on that -occasion, was at Portsmouth, waiting to cross, all Pentecost week (June -3-10). This is conclusive. - -It is certain, therefore, that Robert fitz Roy received the earldom of -Gloucester between April-May, 1121, and June, 1123. We may even reduce -this limit if we can trust a charter in the Register of St. Osmund (i. -382) which is absurdly assigned in the Rolls edition to circ. 1109. The -occurrence of Robert, Earl of Leicester, proves that it must be -subsequent to his father's death in 1118, and consequently (as the -charter is tested at Westminster) to the king's return in 1120. Again, -as Bishop Robert of Lincoln witnesses the charter, it must be previous -to his death, January 10, 1123, But as the king had not been at -Westminster for some time before that, it cannot be placed later than -1122. Now, we have seen that in April-May, 1121, Robert was not yet Earl -of Gloucester; consequently, this charter must belong to the period -between that date and the close of 1122. It is, therefore, the earliest -mention, as yet known to me, of Robert as Earl of Gloucester. As we -increase our knowledge of the charters of this reign we shall doubtless -be able to narrow further the limit I have thus ascertained. - -There is, indeed, a charter which, if we could trust it, would greatly -reduce the limit. This is Henry I.'s great charter to Merton,[1260] -which is attested by Robert, as Earl of Gloucester, and which purports -to have passed August 5-December 31, 1121 (? 24th March, 1122).[1261] -But it is quite certain that, in the form we have it, this charter is -spurious. It is true that the names given in the long list of witnesses -are, apparently, consistent with the date,[1262] but all else is fatally -bad. Both the charter itself, and the attestations thereto, are in the -worst and most turgid style; the precedence of the witnesses is -distinctly wrong,[1263] and the mention of the year-date would alone -rouse suspicion. Whether, and, if so, to what extent, the charter is -based on a genuine document, it is not easy to decide. A reference to -the new _Monasticon_ will show that there is a difficulty, a conflict of -testimony, about the facts of the foundation. This increases the doubt -as to the authenticity of the charter, from the evidence of which, if -not confirmed, we are certainly not entitled to draw any authoritative -conclusion as to the date of Robert's creation. - -Adhering then, for the present, to the limits I have given above -(1121-1122) I may point out that Robert's promotion may possibly have -been due to his increased importance, consequent on the loss in the -White Ship of the king's only legitimate son, and of his natural son -Richard. Of Henry's three adult sons he now alone remained.[1264] It is -certain that he henceforth continued to improve his position and power -till, as we know, he contested with his future rival, Stephen, the -honour of being first among the magnates to swear allegiance to the -Empress. - -Before passing to a corollary of the conclusion arrived at in this paper -it may be well to glance at Robert's younger brother and namesake. This -was a son of Henry by another mother, Edith, whose parentage, by the -way, suggests a genealogical problem.[1265] He was quite a nonentity in -the history of the time as compared with the elder Robert; nor does his -name, so far as I know, occur before 1130, when it is entered in the -Pipe-Roll for that year. He is found as a witness to one of his royal -father's charters, which is only known to us from the _Cartæ Antiquæ_, -and which belongs to the end of the reign.[1266] There is no possibility -of confusion between his brother and himself, for his earliest -attestations are, as we have seen, several years later than his -brother's elevation to the earldom, so that they cannot both have been -attesting, at any one period, as "Robert, the king's son." It is, -moreover, self-evident that such a style could only be used when there -was but one person whom it could be held to denote. - -As illustrating the value of such researches as these, and the -importance of securing a "fixed point" as a help for other inquiries, I -shall now give an instance of the results consequent on ascertaining the -date of this creation. Let us turn to that remarkable record among the -muniments of St. Paul's, which the present Deputy Keeper of the Records -first made public,[1267] and which has since been published _in extenso_ -and in fac-simile by the Corporation of London in their valuable -_History of the Guildhall_. The importance of this record lies in its -mention of the wards of the City, with their respective rulers, at an -exceptionally early date. What that date was it is most desirable to -learn. Mr. Loftie has rightly, in his later work,[1268] made the -greatest use of this list, which he describes (p. 93) as "the document I -have so often quoted as containing a list of the lands of the dean and -chapter before 1115." Indeed, he invariably treats this document as one -"which must have been written before 1115" (p. 82). But the only reason -to be found for his conclusion is that— - - "Coleman Street appears in the St. Paul's list as 'Warda Reimundi,' and - this is the more interesting as we know that Reimund, or Reinmund, was - dead before 1115, which helps us to date the document. Azo, his son, - succeeded him" (p. 89).[1269] - -This is a most astounding statement, considering that all "we know," -from these documents, of Reimund or Reinmund is that both he and his son -Azo were living in 1132, when they attested a charter![1270] Turning -from this strange blunder to the fact that the Earl of Gloucester is -among those mentioned in this list,[1271] we learn at once that, so far -from being _earlier_ than 1115, it is _later_ than the earl's creation -in 1121-1122. And this conclusion accords well with the fact that other -names which it contains, such as those of John fitz Ralf (fitz -Evrard),[1272] William Malet, etc., belong to the close of the -reign.[1273] - -Before taking leave of this record, I would glance at the curious entry:— - - "Terra Gialle [reddit] ii sol[idos] et est latitudinis LII pedum - longitudinis CXXXII pedum." - -Mr. Price, the editor of the work, renders this "The land of Gialla;" -but what possible proper name can "Gialla" represent? When we find that -the list is followed by a reference to the Jews being "incarcerati apud -Gyhalam," _temp._ Edward I., and when Mr. Price admits that "Gyaula" is -among the early forms of "Guildhall," is it too rash a conjecture that -we have in the above "Gialla" a mention of the Guildhall of London -earlier, by far, than he, or any one else, has ever yet discovered? - -[1206] This, the important word, is unfortunately doubtful. - -[1207] "He was advanced to the earldom of Gloucester by the king (his -father). After which, in Anno 1119 (20 Hen. I.), he attended him in that -famous battle at Brennevill," etc., etc. (_Baronage_, i. 534). - -[1208] A paper on the earldom was read by the late Mr. J. G. Nichols, at -the Gloucester Congress of the Institute (1851), but I do not find that -it was ever printed, so that I cannot give the date which he assigned. - -[1209] _Athenæum_, May 9 and June 27, 1885. - -[1210] _Academy_, September 29, 1883 (p. 207). - -[1211] v. 199. - -[1212] iv. 302. - -[1213] The king promised the charter on the occasion of his visit -(February 3, 1113), and when it had been drawn up, it received his -formal approval at Rouen, "Anno quo comes Andegavensis mecum pacem fecit -et Cenomanniam de me, meus homo factus, recepit." - -[1214] _Abingdon Cartulary_, ii. 77. - -[1215] Henry remained abroad between the above dates. - -[1216] _Gallia Christiana_, xi. (Instrumenta), pp. 111-112. The charter -is there assigned, but without any reason being given, to 1118. A -collation, however, of this record with the names given by Ordericus -Vitalis (iv. 329) of those present at the Council of Rouen, October 7, -1118, makes it all but certain that it passed on that occasion. - -[1217] _Academy_, No. 645. - -[1218] Duchy of Lancaster: Royal Charters, No. 6. - -[1219] Compare the Rouen charter (1113) to St. Evroul, where the clause -is "Anno quo comes Andegavensis mecum pacem fecit," etc., etc. (see p. -423). - -[1220] This is specially applicable to the insertion of the year in -numerals. Such date would be, though actually an addition, yet a -legitimate inference from the event alluded to in the charter. It may be -worth alluding to another case, though it stands on somewhat a different -footing, to illustrate the infinite variety of treatment to which such -charters were subjected, even when there were neither occasion nor -intention to deceive. This is that of the final agreement between the -Archbishops of Canterbury and York, of which the record is preserved at -Canterbury. It has been discovered that the document from which -historians have quoted (A. 1) is not really the original, but a copy -"which was plainly intended for public exhibition" (_Fifth Report Hist. -MSS._, App. i. p. 452). Moreover, the real original (A. 2) was found not -to contain the final clause (narrating the place and circumstances of -the agreement), which is hence supposed to have been subsequently added, -for the sake of convenience, by the clerk. (See my letter in _Athenæum_, -December 19, 1891.) - -[1221] Natural son of Odo, Bishop of Bayeux, the Conqueror's -half-brother. - -[1222] "Nigellus de Calna reddit compotum de j marca argenti pro -Willelmo nepote suo" (_Rot. Pip._, 31 Hen. I., p. 18). - -[1223] Made Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry early in 1121. - -[1224] _Alias_ "de Sigillo." He was made Bishop of Hereford in January, -1121, as "Ricardus qui regii sigilli sub cancellario custos erat" -(Eadmer). - -[1225] In both we have the same three earls, neither more nor less; in -both we have the same two _filii regis_, Robert and Richard; in both we -have Richard de Tankerville and Nigel de Albini and Roger fitz Richard. - -[1226] "Willelmum jam olim regni hæredem designatum" (p. 290). Compare -the Continuator of Florence of Worcester, who, speaking of the very -event (1119) by which this charter is dated, describes him as William -"quem jam [i.e. 1116] hæredem totius regni sui constituerat" (ii. 72). - -[1227] _Florence of Worcester_, ii. 72. - -[1228] _Ordericus Vitalis_ (ed. Société de l'Histoire de France), iv. -371. - -[1229] Henry of Huntingdon. - -[1230] _Cont. Flor. Wig._, ii. 75; _Eadmer_, 290. - -[1231] "Sciatis me dedisse et concessisse Ricardo episcopo episcopatum -de Hereford," etc., etc. - -[1232] Five of them joined the primate in the consecration of the Bishop -of Hereford (January 16). The Archbishop of York was not at the council, -being still in disgrace with the king for his conduct at the Council of -Rheims (October, 1119). - -[1233] _Journ. Brit. Arch. Ass._, xxix. 258, 259. - -[1234] Reading "Willelmo, & Ricardo filiis Baldewini," where the charter -has:—"(1) William de Tankerville, (2) William de Albini, (3) Walter de -Gloucester, (4) Adam de Port, (5) William de Pirou, (6) Walter de Gant, -(7) Richard fitz Baldwin. - -[1235] The Count of Mortain, and the Earl of Chester. The latter was, of -course, now Randolf, who had succeeded his cousin Richard, drowned in -the White Ship. - -[1236] _Vide supra_, p. 423. - -[1237] "Anno MCXXI Concilio totius Angliæ ante purificationem ... apud -Winderesoram adunato, Henricus rex ... Adelinam matrimonio sibi junxit" -(ii. 219). - -[1238] _Formularium Anglicanum_, No. lxv. (p 39). - -[1239] This would give us, as the principal guests assembled at the -king's wedding, his brother-in-law, Earl David, his nephews Theobald, -Count of Blois, and Stephen, Count of Mortain, with the primates of -England and of Normandy. - -[1240] Madox's _Formularium Anglicanum_, No. ccccxcvi. (p. 292). - -[1241] Earl David and the Count of Blois. - -[1242] Duchy of Lancaster: Royal Charters, No. 6. - -[1243] _Supra_, p. 426. - -[1244] _Anglo-Saxon Chronicle._ - -[1245] Winchester, who had attested the Windsor charters, and who here -attests in his own city; and St. David's, who is constantly found at -Court, and who had attested, in January, the charter at Westminster, to -the Bishop of Hereford (_supra_, p. 428). - -[1246] "Concessio Manerii de clara Archiepiscopo Rothomagensi." - -[1247] _Mon. Ang._, i. 629. - -[1248] _Add. MSS._, 31,937, fol. 130. - -[1249] Cart., 5 Edw. III., n. 10. - -[1250] The chancellor and three bishops. - -[1251] Duchy of Lancaster: Royal Charters, No. 6. - -[1252] _Monasticon Anglicanum_, ii. 66. - -[1253] _Addl. MSS._, 31,943, fol. 68, _b_. - -[1254] _Survey of Lindsey_, p. 3. See my paper on "The spurious -Tewkesbury Charter" in _Genealogist_, October, 1891. - -[1255] "Rex Anglorum" was the normal style employed in the English -charters of Henry I.: "Dux Normannorum," etc., was added by Henry II. - -[1256] _Academy_, June 27, 1885. - -[1257] _Notes and Queries_, 6th series, i. 6. - -[1258] _Athenæum_, Dec. 19, 1885. - -[1259] Duchy of Lancaster: Royal Charters, No. 5. - -[1260] _Cartæ Antiquæ_, R. 5. - -[1261] It is dated 1121, and in the twenty-second year of the reign. - -[1262] That is, if Archbishop Thurstan was yet restored to favour. - -[1263] The chancellor, for instance, instead of attesting after the -bishops and before the laity, actually follows immediately after the -archbishops, and precedes the whole "bench of bishops." I have been -amazed to find antiquaries who thought nothing of this matter of -precedence. - -[1264] Robert and Richard are the two of Henry's natural sons, who are -mentioned as with him in Normandy, and fighting beneath his standard at -Noyon (1119). - -[1265] If, as suggested by the narrative in the _Monasticon_ of the -foundation of Osney Abbey, her father's name was "Forne," one is tempted -to ask if the bearer of so uncommon a name was identical with the Forn -Ligulfson ("Forne filius Ligulfi"), who is mentioned by Simeon of -Durham, in 1121, as one of the magnates of Northumbria, and if so, -whether the latter was son of the wealthy but ill-fated Ligulf, murdered -near Durham in 1080. Should both these queries be answered in the -affirmative, Edith would have been named after her grandmother -"Eadgyth," the highly born wife of Ligulf. Writing at a distance from -works of reference I cannot tell whether such a descent has been -suggested before, but it would certainly, could it be proved, be of -quite exceptional interest. Edith, as is tolerably well known, was first -the mistress of Henry, and then the wife of Robert D'Oilli. Thus her son -by the former, Robert fitz Edith (see p. 94, _n._ 4), was (half)-brother -to Henry D'Oilli, and is so described by the latter in one of his grants -to Osney (Dugdale's _Baronage_, i. 460). It should be added that an "Ivo -fil' Forn" appears in the Pipe-Roll of 1130 (p. 25). Was he brother to -Edith? - -[1266] Charter to the church of Durham, printed in Rymer's _Fœdera_ -(Record edition), i. 13, and assigned by Sir T. D. Hardy (_Syllabus_) to -"1134." It was, in any case, subsequent to Flambard's death (September -5, 1128). - -[1267] _Ninth Report Hist. MSS._, App. i. p. 56. - -[1268] _Historic Towns: London._ - -[1269] Mr. Loftie elsewhere tells us (p. 27) that Reinmund "was -succeeded by his more eminent son Azo, the goldsmith, whom it would be -interesting to identify with one of the Azors of Domesday." How does Mr. -Loftie know that Azo was "more eminent" than his father, or that he was -a "goldsmith"? On one point we can certainly agree with him. It _would_ -be most "interesting" to identify a Domesday tenant in a man whose -father was living in 1132! - -[1270] _Ninth Report_ (_ut supra_), p. 67 _b_. For similar instances of -eccentric statements on the City fathers in Mr. Loftie's book, see p. -355, and my paper on "The First Mayor of London" (_Antiquary_, March, -1887). They throw, it will be found, a strange light on Mr. Elton's -unfortunate remark that "Mr. Loftie makes good use of the documents -discovered at St. Paul's" (_Academy_, April 30, 1887, p. 301). - -[1271] "Socce Comitis Gloecestrie." - -[1272] Cf. pp. 305, 306. - -[1273] Ralf fitz "Algod," Robert fitz Gosbert, and Robert d'Ou occur in -a deed of 1132 (_Ninth Report Hist. MSS._, App. i. p. 67 _b_), and -Osbert Masculus in one of 1142 (_ibid._, p. 40 _b_). - - - - -ADDENDA. - - -Page 5. The assertion by the Continuator of Florence of Worcester that -Stephen kept his coronation court "cum totius Angliæ primoribus" has an -important bearing on the assertion by Florence that Harold was elected -to the throne "a totius Angliæ primatibus." For this latter phrase is -the sheet-anchor upon which Mr. Freeman relies for the fact of Harold's -valid election, and which he is avowedly compelled to strain to the -uttermost:— - - "He was chosen, not by some small or packed assembly, but by the chief - men of the land. And he was chosen, not by this or that shire or - earldom, but by the chief men of the whole land.... All this is implied - in the weighty and carefully chosen words of Florence" (_Norman - Conquest_ (1869), iii. 597). - -So also he confidently insists that— - - "There can be no doubt that the Witan of Northumberland, no less than - the Witan of the rest of England, had concurred in the election of - Harold. The expressions of our best authorities declare that the chief - men of all England concurred in the choice" (_ibid._, p. 57). - -The only authority given for this assertion is the above statement by -Florence that "Harold was 'a totius Angliæ primatibus ad regale culmen -electus.'" - -Now, the known authorities from which Florence worked (the Abingdon and -Worcester chronicles) "are," Mr. Freeman admits, "silent about the -election." The fact, therefore, rests on the _ipse dixit_ of Florence -(for the words of the Peterborough chronicler are quite general, and, -moreover, he is admittedly a partisan), who was, strictly speaking, not -a contemporary authority. - -Stephen's election, as Mr. Freeman observes, "can hardly fail to call to -our minds" that of Harold, and in the case of Stephen's accession we -have what he himself terms the "valuable contemporary" evidence of the -Continuator of Florence." This evidence, which is better, because more -contemporary, than that of Florence as to 1066, is equally precise -(_vide supra_), and might, in the absence of rebutting testimony, be -appealed to as confidently as Mr. Freeman appeals to that of Florence. -But in this case it is proved, by rebutting evidence, to be worthless, -just as it is at Maud's "reception" in 1141 (see p. 64). - -Therefore, we see how dangerous it is to accept such statements, when -unsupported, as exact in every detail, and are led to regard the words -of Florence as a mere conventional phrase, rather than to hold, as Mr. -Freeman insists, that in "no passage in any writer of any age ... does -every word deserve to be more attentively weighed." - -The caution with which such evidence should be used is one of the chief -lessons this work is intended to enforce (see p. 267). - -Page 8. There is much confusion as to the charters of liberties issued -by Stephen. The "second" charter, as explained in the text, was issued -at Oxford in the spring of 1136; the other, commonly termed the -"coronation" charter, is found only, it would seem, in the Cottonian MS. -Claud. D. II., and has no note of date. Mr. Hubert Hall has been good -enough to inform me that the authority of this MS. is first-rate; and, -as to the date at which the charter was issued, that of the coronation, -there is no doubt, was the most _probable_. It is important to observe -that the oath stated by William of Malmesbury to have been taken by -Stephen at his first arrival (and afterwards committed to writing at -Oxford) was "de libertate reddenda ecclesiæ et conservanda." William's -remark that this oath, "postea scripto inditum, loco suo non -prætermittam," proves that he must have looked on the _Oxford_ charter -as the record of this oath in writing; for that is the only charter -which he gives in his work. This fits in with the fact that the charter -assigned to the coronation contains no mention of the Church and her -liberties, while the "second" (Oxford) charter is full of them. It would -appear, then, that the Oxford charter combined the original oath to the -Church with the "coronation" charter to the people at large, at the same -time expanding them both in fuller detail. - -Page 37. (Cf. p. 354.) It would, perhaps, have been rash to introduce -into the text the conjecture that in the first Geoffrey de Mandeville we -have the actual "Gosfregth Portirefan" to whom the Conqueror's charter -to the citizens of London was addressed, although the story in the _De -Inventione_, the known connection of the Mandevilles with the -shrievalty, and the striking resemblance of the two names (even closer -than in "Esegar" and "Ansgar"), all point to the same conclusion. - -The association of the custody of the Tower with the shrievalty of -London and Middlesex is a point of considerable interest, because in -other cases—such as those of Worcestershire, Gloucestershire, Wilts, and -Devon—we find the custody of the fortress in the county town and the -shrievalty of the shire hereditarily vested in the same hands. - -Page 74. The phrase "in regni dominam electa" must, as explained in the -text, not be pressed too far, as it may be loosely used. But the -parallel is too curious to be passed over. - -Page 92. The grant of "excidamenta" confers on Geoffrey the -escheatorship of Essex to the exclusion of any Crown officer. - -Page 93. The closing clauses of this charter suggest that Geoffrey was -even then guarding himself against the consequences of future treason. - -Page 103. The grants of knight-service to Geoffrey should be carefully -compared with those, by Henry I., to William de Albini "Pincerna," as -recorded in the _carta_ of his fief (_Liber Rubeus_, ed. Hall, p. 397), -and are also illustrated by the charter to Aubrey, p. 189. - -Page 112. "Archiepiscopo Cant." is, of course, a transcriber's wrong -extension for "Arch[idiacono] Cant." - -Page 116. The phrase "senatoribus inclitis, civibus honoratis, et -omnibus commune London" may be compared with the "cent partz et a laut -poble et comunautat de Baione" on p. 248. - -Page 182. The expression "una baronia" should be noted as a very early -instance of its use. - -Page 189. The name of Abbot Ording dates this charter as between 1148 -and 1156 (_Memorials of St. Edmundsbury_, I. xxxiv.). - -Page 190. "Mauricius dapifer" was Maurice de Windsor, steward of the -Abbey. For him and for the Cockfield family, see the Camden Society's -edition of Jocelyn de Brakelonde. - -"Alanus filius Frodonis" was probably the heir of Frodo, brother to -Abbot Baldwin of St. Edmund's (see Domesday). - -Page 205. Compare William of Malmesbury's criticism on Stephen's conduct -in attacking Lincoln (1140) without due notice: "Iniquum id visum -multis," etc. - -Page 235. The transcriber is responsible, of course, for the extension -of the king's style. - -Page 242. It is only fair to add that the peculiar strength of the words -of inheritance might be held to support the view that hereditary -earldoms were a novelty. - -Page 267. The charters of Henry II. to certain earls in no way affect my -real contention, namely, that no "fiscal" earls were, as is alleged, -deprived by him of their earldoms. - -Page 275. On the gradual resumption of Crown Lands, see my _Ancient -Charters_, page 47. - -Page 286. "Navium applicationibus" (cf. _Domesday_, 32: "De exitu aquæ -ubi naves applicabant") is a phrase occurring elsewhere as "appulatione -navium." It there equates "theloneum," and was doubtless a payment for -landing-dues. So, "de teloneo dando ad Bilingesgate" is found in the -Instituta Londoniæ of Æthelred. - -Page 312, note 1. Compare the charge against Harold (in the French life -of the Confessor) that he "deners cum usurer amasse." - -Page 314. The occurrence of "salinis" among the general words in this -charter is clearly due to the rights of the Beauchamps in Droitwich and -its salt-pans. - -Page 371. The amount of the _firma_ seems to be determined by an entry -in the Pipe-Roll of 15 Hen. II. (page 169), which makes it £500 -"blanch," _plus_ a varying sum of about £20 "numero." - -Page 372. Henry's jealousy of the Londoners might also be due, in part, -to their steadfast support of Stephen and opposition to his mother. His -restriction of clauses (1) and (10) to lands within the walls is -illustrated by a citizen having to pay, in 1169 (_Rot. Pip._ 15 -Hen. II., p. 173), "ut placitet contra W. de R. _in civitate Lund'_ de -terra de Eggeswera" (Edgware), as a special favour. - - - - -INDEX. - - -A - -Abetot, Geoffrey d', 314 - -————, Urse d', 314, 315 - -Abingdon Abbey, its treasury robbed, 213; - its troubles, 415, 416; - its delegate, 384 - -———— ————, Ingulf, abbot of, 265, 415 - -Adeliza, Queen (wife of Henry I.), her "election," 74, 439; - marries Henry I., 429; - William de Albini, 319, 322, 323; - dowered by Henry I., 322, 324; - her grant to Reading, 325 - -Ælfgar ("Colessune"), 310 - -————, Nicholas, son of, 309, 310 - -_Affidatio_, 170, 176, 182, 384-387 - -Aino, William de, 230 - -Albamarle. _See_ AUMÂLE - -Albini, Nigel de, 427 - -————, William de ("Pincerna"), 262, 263, 324, 428, 439. - _See also_ ARUNDEL - -Aldreth (Camb.), 161, 162, 209 - -Alexander, Pope, absolves Earl Geoffrey, 224 - -Algasil, Gingan, 60 - -Alvia, Andrew de, 172, 183 - -Anarchy, incidents of the, 127-132, 134, 206, 209-220, 323, 403, 414-416 - -Andover, Stephen at, 47; - burnt by his queen, 128 - -Angers, Ulger, bishop of, pleads for Maud at Rome, 8, 254-257 - -Anjou. _See_ GEOFFREY - -Ansgar. _See_ ESEGAR - -Anstey (Herts.), 141 - -Appleby Castle, 331 - -Arch', Gilbert, 314 - -Ardleigh (Essex), 402 - -Ardres, Baldwin d', 189, 397 - -Arms, collateral adoption of, 394; - date of their origin, 396 - -Arques, Château d', 340-346; - its keep built by Henry I., 333 - -————, Count William of, 341-343, 345, 346 - -————, William of, 180, 188, 397 - -Arras, Baldwin of, 310 - -Arsic, Geoffrey, 190, 230 - -Arundel, Robert, 93, 263, 261, 266 - -————, Empress lands at, 55, 278, 280 - -————, William (de Albini), earl of, 143, 145, 146; - "pincerna," 324; - created earl, 322; - styled Earl of Chichester, 318, 320; - Earl of Sussex, 146, 319, 320; - Earl of Lincoln, 324, 325; - his charter from Henry II., 240; - his "third penny," 293; - holds Waltham, 324; - at St. Albans, 204-206; - dies, 317; - his character, 323 - -————, earldom of, 316-325; - its earliest mention, 146, 271, 322; - not an earldom by tenure, 316, 324; - its various names, 320, 321; - similar to other earldoms, 322, 325 - -Assarts (forest), 92, 168, 182, 376-378 - -Aston (Salop), 418 - -Auco. _See_ OU - -Aumâle, William of (Earl of York), 143, 145, 146, 157, 262-264, 276, 385 - -Avranches, Rhiwallon d', 397 - -————, Turgis d', 46, 52, 144, 149, 158, 207 - -————, William d', 154, 180, 397 - -————, bishop of, Richard, 262, 263 - -Aynho (Northants), 390 - -Azo. _See_ REINMUND - - -B - -Baentona. _See_ BAMPTON - -Bailiffs, represent, in towns, the sheriff, 110 - -Balliol, Joscelin de, 236 - -Bampton, Robert de, 140 - -Bareville, Walter de, 231 - -Barking, Stephen at, 320; - his charters to, 320, 378; - Alice, abbess of, 378 - -"Baronia," grant of a, 182, 439 - -Barstable, hundred of, grant of the, 320 - -Basset, Ralf, 419 - -————, Richard, 265, 297, 298, 417, 418 - -Bath, Stephen grants his bishopric of, 18, 21 - -————, Robert, bishop of, 18, 64, 263 - -Battle, Warner, abbot of, 265 - -Bayeux, John de, 427 - -————, Odo, bishop of, 427 - -Bayonne, customs of, 247 - -Bazas (Aquitaine), customs of, 247 - -Beauchamp, Maud de, 313 - -————, Stephen de, 314, 315 - -————, Walter de, 313-315 - -————, William de, 154, 409, 416; - constable, 285, 313; - his charter from the Empress, 313-315 - -———— (of Bedford), Miles de, 171, 183, 314, 315 - -————, Payne de, 171, 392, 393 - -————, Robert de, 171 - -————, Simon de, 171, 231, 262, 263, 390, 392, 393 - -Beaudesert Castle, 65 - -Beaufoe, Henry, 230; - Ralf de, 373 - -Beaumont, Hugh de. _See_ "PAUPER" - -Becket, Thomas, his youth, 374, 375; - as chancellor, 228, 236. - _See also_ CANTERBURY - -Bedford, earldom of, 270, 271, 276 - -"Begeford," 286 - -Belmeis, Richard de (archdeacon), 123 - -Belun, Adam de, 144, 158, 201, 320 - -Belvoir, Robert de, 385 - -Benwick, 211 - -Berkeley, Henry I. at, 430 - -————, Roger de, 380, 409 - -Berkshire, earldom of, 181 - -Berners, Ralf de, 229-231 - -Bigod, Gunnor, 391 - -————, Hugh (Earl of Norfolk), 403; - with Henry I., 265, 365; - asserts the Empress was disinherited, 6; - with Stephen at Reading, 11, 13; - at Oxford, 263; - rebels, 23; - attacked by Stephen, 49; - created earl, 50, 188, 191, 238, 270; - with the Empress, 83, 172, 178, 183; - opposed to Stephen, 195; - rebels, 209; - his earldom East Anglian, 273; - created anew by Henry II., 277 - -————, Roger, 329 - -Bigorre, customs of, quoted, 58 - -Birch, Mr. W. de Gray, on a charter of Henry I., 428; - on the charters to Geoffrey, 44, 87; - on the seals of Stephen, 50, 139; - on the election of the Empress, 59-61, 63; - on the charters of the Empress, 66, 76; - on the styles of the Empress, 75-78, 83; - on the seal of the Empress, 299; - his remarkable discovery, 71-73 - -Bishopsbridge, Roger of, 375 - -Bishop's Stortford, 167; - its castle, 174 - -Bisset, Manasser, 236 - -Blois, Count Theobald of, 91, 428-430; - forfeited by the Empress, 102, 140 - -Blundus, Gilbert, 190 - -————, Robert, 229 - -Bocland, Hugh de, 309, 328, 355 - -————, Walter de, 201 - -Boeville, William de, 142, 231 - -————, Otwel de, 229 - -Bohun, Humfrey de, 125, 234, 263, 265, 281, 286, 314, 315, 418 - -Bolbec, Hugh de, 201, 416 - -————, Walter de, 264 - -Bonhunt. _See_ WICKHAM BONHUNT - -Boreham (Essex), 214 - -"Bosco, de," Ernald, 228 - -Boseville, William de, 142 - -Bosham, Herbert of, on the Emperor, 301 - -Boterel, Geoffrey, 125 - -————, Peter, 415 - -————, William, 415 - -Boulogne, Count Eustace of, 1, 2, 143, 168 - -————, Geoffrey de, 147 - -————, Pharamus de, 120, 144, 147 - -————, Richard de, 120 - -————, honour of, 121, 141, 147, 168, 182 - -Bourton, young Henry attacks, 409 - -Boxgrove Priory, 320 - -Brampton, Henry I. at, 428 - -Braughing (Herts.), 141 - -Breteuil, William de, 327 - -Bristol, Empress arrives at, 55, 278; - Stephen imprisoned at, 56, 65; - Empress and her followers at, 135, 163; - young Henry at, 407 - -————, St. Augustine's Abbey, 408 - -Brito, Mainfeninus, 52, 201, 360 - -————, Ranulf (? Ralf), 143 - -Brittany, Alan of. _See_ RICHMOND - -Buccuinte, Andrew, 305, 309 - -Buckenham Abbey, foundation of, 318 - -Buckingham, earldom of, 272 - -Bumsted Helion (Essex), 181 - -Bungay (Suffolk), the foundation at, 318 - -Burwell, besieged by Geoffrey, 220; - who falls there, 221 - -Bury, Richard de, his "Liber Epistolaris," 261 - -Bushey (Herts.), 92, 156 - - -C - -Caen, castle of, 331, 333 - -Calne, Nigel de, 427 - -Cambridge, sacked by Geoffrey, 212 - -Cambridgeshire, "tertius denarius" of, 181, 193, 194 - -————, earldom of, 181, 191-193, 271, 273 - -"Camera abbatis," annuity from the, 190 - -Camerarius, Eustace, 231 - -————, Fulcred, 355 - -————, Richard, 355 - -————, William, 355 - -Camville, Richard de, 159 - -Cantelupe, Simon de, 402 - -Canterbury, Gervase of, his accuracy confirmed, 137, 375; - his chronology discussed, 284, 406-408 - -————, John of (clerk), 375 - -————, archbishops of, Lanfranc, 326, 337; - ——Anselm, sanctions marriage of Henry I., 257; - ——Ralf, 307, 428; - ——William, 265, 306; - extorts oath from Stephen, 3; - crowns him, 4-8, 253; - with him at Reading, 11; - at Westminster and Oxford, 262; - his clerk "Lovel," 253; - builds keep of Rochester, 337, 338; - ——Theobald, 311, 370, 386; - meets the Empress, 65; - hesitates to receive her, 260; - attends her election, 69; - at her court, 125; - supports her cause, 208; - forfeited by Stephen, 251; - with Henry II., 236; - patron of Becket, 375; - papal letters to, 214, 215, 412, 413; - ——Thomas (Becket), confirms compensation to Ramsey, 225; - claims Saltwood, 327. - _See also_ BECKET - -————, archdeacon of, Geoffrey, 112, 439 - -————, Stephen at, 1; - granted to Earl of Gloucester, 2; - Stephen re-crowned at, 137-139; - Henry II. at, 236, 237 - -———— and York, charter of settlement between, 426 - -Capella, Aubrey de, 190 - -Capellanus, Hasculf, 231 - -———— regis, 427. _See also_ FECAMP - -Capra. _See_ CHIÉVRE - -Carbonel, Hugh (fitz Ralf) de, 190 - -————, Ralf de, 190 - -Carlisle, Athelwulf, bishop of, 262, 263 - -————, "firma" of, 363 - -————, young Henry at, 408, 409 - -———— Castle, 331 - -_Cartæ_ of 1166, erroneous headings of, 399, 402; - carelessly transcribed, 401; - illustrated by Pipe-Rolls, 402 - -"Castellum," special meaning of, 331-334, 337, 338, 340, 343 - -Castles, erection of, and license for, 142, 154, 156, 160, 168, - 174, 175; - misery caused by, 217, 416; - surrender of, extorted, 202, 207; - their character, 331, 334, 343, 346; - in hands of sheriffs, 439 - -"Castrum." _See_ "CASTELLUM" - -Catlidge (Essex), 90, 140 - -Celestine, Pope, favours the Empress, 252, 258, 259 - -Cerney, 281 - -Chahaines, Philip de, 382 - -————, Reginald de, 382 - -Chalk (Kent), 306, 308 - -Chamberlainship of England, the, 180, 187, 390 - -Chancellors (Stephen's), Philip (de Harcourt), 46-48; - ——Roger (le Poor), 262, 263 - -———— (the Empress's), William (fitz Gilbert), 93, 123, 171, 182, 195; - ——William de Vere, 182, 195 - -———— (of Henry I.), Geoffrey, 265 - -Charters of Henry I., 19, 25, 422-434; - to London, 109, 347, 356, 359, 364, 367, 370; - to Aubrey de Vere, 187, 390; - to church of Salisbury, 265; - to Gervase of Cornhill, 305; - to Bishop of Hereford, 428; - to Colchester Abbey, 423-427; - to Westminster, 429; - to Tewkesbury, 431; - to Bardney, 430; - Eudo Dapifer, 328 - -———— of Stephen, 18, 19, 23, 25, 27, 438; - to Miles of Gloucester, 11-14, 176; - to church of Salisbury, 46; - to Geoffrey de Mandeville, 41-53, 138, 156; - to Monks Horton, 158; - to Earl of Lincoln, 159; - to Abingdon, 201; - to St. Frideswide's, 201; - to Barking, 320, 378 - -———— of the Empress Maud, 82, 83, 194; - to Geoffrey de Mandeville, 41, 42, 86-113, 139, 163-177, 291; - to Miles of Gloucester, 56, 60, 123, 165, 288; - to St. Bene't of Hulme, 67; - to Thurstan de Montfort, 65, 66; - to Glastonbury, 83; - to Haughmond, 123; - to Aubrey de Vere, 178-195; - to Geoffrey de Mandeville, jun., 233; - to Roger de Valoines, 286; - to William de Beauchamp, 313-315, 440; - to Geoffrey Ridel, 417; - to Humfrey de Bohun, 418; - to Shrewsbury Abbey, 418 - -———— of Queen Matilda, to Geoffrey, 118-121, 139, 156; - to Gervase, 120 - -———— of Henry II., 112; - to Wallingford, 200; - to Feversham Abbey, 147; - to Aubrey de Vere, 184-186, 237, 239; - to Geoffrey the younger, 234-241; - to Earl of Arundel, 240, 277; - to Hugh Bigod, 239, 277, 288; - to London, 367-371, 440; - to Geoffrey Ridel, 418 - -———— of Richard I., to Colchester, 110 - -———— of John, to London, 372 - -———— of Henry III., to London, 358 - -————, dating clauses in, 426, 431, 433; - archaic _formulæ_, in, 241; - forged, altered, and enlarged, 424, 425, 431; - garbled, 426, 433; - granted at Easter court (1136), 18, 19, 262-265; - of Henry I. and Henry II. to London, compared, 368-371; - of Mandeville family, 228-233, 390; - of Basset family, 417 - -Chester, Randulf, earl of, 146, 160, 262, 263, 265, 380, 423, 429; - at Easter court (1136), 265; - at siege of Winchester, 128; - reconciled to Stephen, 159; - his wrong doings, 268; - arrested by Stephen, 203; - joins Henry, 409, 419; - dies, 276; - his charter of restitution, 415 - -————, Richard, earl of, 423, 429 - -————, Roger, bishop of, 83, 253, 265; - died, 251 - -————, John (de Lacy), constable of, 390 - -Chiche, Maurice de, 142 - -Chichester, Seffrid, bishop of, 83, 262, 263, 265 - -————, earl of. _See_ ARUNDEL - -Chicksand Priory, 231, 390 - -Chiévre, Geoffrey, 169 - -————, Michael, 169 - -————, William, 169 - -Chreshall (Essex), 168 - -"Christianitas Angliæ," 172, 177, 183, 387 - -Cirencester, Empress at, 57; - captured by Stephen, 197; - Earl of Gloucester reaches, 199, 406 - -Clairvaux, Payne de, 172, 183 - -————, Robert de, 172, 183 - -Clare, Richard "fitz Gilbert" de (I.), 321 - -————, Gilbert "fitz Richard" (I.) de, 329 - -————, ————, Baldwin "fitz Gilbert" de, 13, 144, 145, 148, 159 - -————, ————, Richard "fitz Gilbert" de (II.), 40, 148, 270, 271 - -————, ————, Walter "fitz Gilbert" de, 159 - -————, Robert "fitz Richard" (I.) de, 11, 13, 14, 262, 263, 370 - -————, Roger "fitz Richard" (I.) de, 265, 427 - -————, Walter "fitz Richard" (I.) de, 13, 14, 264, 265 - -————, Alice de (wife of Aubrey de Vere), 390 - -————, earldom of. _See_ HERTFORD - -———— _See also_ PEMBROKE, earl of; - EXETER, Baldwin of - -Clarendon, Stephen at, 378 - -————, Assize of, 111-113 - -Clark, Mr. G. T., on Gloucester Castle, 330; - on the Tower of London, 334; - on Rochester Castle, 338; - on the keep of Newcastle, 339, 346; - on the Château d'Arques, 340-346; - his authority, 346 - -Clavering (Essex), 391 - -Clericus, Hugh, 231 - -————, Lovel, 253 - -————, Roger, 231 - -————, Simon, 231 - -Clinton, Geoffrey de, 265, 297 - -Cluny, Peter, abbot of, 253, 254 - -————, abbey of, favours the Empress, 254 - -Cnihtengild, the London, 307-309 - -Cockfield, Adam de, 190, 440 - -————, Robert de, 190 - -Coffin, story of the Empress escaping in a, 134 - -"Cokeford," 314 - -Colchester, charter of Richard I. to, 110 - -———— Castle, granted to Eudo Dapifer, 328; - to Aubrey de Vere, 180, 185, 328 - -———— Abbey (St. John's), 391; - charter of Henry I. to, 423-427 - -———— ————, Hugh, abbot of, 194 - -Coleville, Robert de, 314 - -————, W. de, 159 - -Colne Priory, 390 - -Columbers, Philip de, 419 - -"Communa." _See_ LONDONERS - -"Communio." _See_ LONDONERS - -Compostella, St. Jago de, pilgrimages to, 415 - -Compton (Warwick), 390 - -Constableship, hereditary, 285, 314, 315, 326 - -"Constabularia" (of knights), the, 155 - -"Constabularie, Honor," 326, 327 - -Corbet, Robert, 383 - -Cornhill, Edward de, 306, 307 - -————, ————, his wife "Godeleve," 306-308 - -————, Gervase de, 304-312; - his loan to the Queen, 120, 305; - justiciar of London, 121, 305; - sheriff of London, 304; - of Kent, 311; - a money-lender, 311; - his descendants, 312 - -————, ————, his wife Agnes, 306, 308; - his brother Alan, 310, 311 - -————, Henry de (son of Gervase), 305, 310 - -————, Ralph de, 310 - -————, Reginald de, 310 - -————. _See also_ "NEPOS HUBERTI," Roger - -Cornwall, Reginald ("filius regis"), earl of, 68, 82, 123, 125, 172, - 183, 234, 236, 263, 264, 271, 418, 419 - -————, earldom of, 68, 271 - -Coronation, its relation to election, 5; - its importance, 6; - in the power of the Church, 7; - performed at Westminster, 78, 80; - repeated by Stephen and by Richard I., 137 - -Coroners represent, in towns, the "justiciar," 110 - -Councils, 17-24, 48, 69, 136, 165, 202, 264, 265, 278, 412, 413, 415, - 423, 427-429 - -Courci, Robert de (Dapifer), 170, 183 - -————, Alice de, 310 - -Courtenay, Hugh de, 296 - -Coutances, "Algarus," bishop of, 262, 263 - -————, Geoffrey, bishop of, 290 - -Crevecœur, Robert de, 158 - -Cricklade, young Henry attacks, 409 - -————, "third penny" of, 289 - -Crown, hereditary right to the, 25, 26, 29, 30, 32, 33, 55, 186, - 200, 253-256; - elective, 26, 29, 34; - kept at Winchester, 62 - -Crown lands, grants of, 99, 101, 140, 142, 149, 154, 167, 269, 275, 440; - their rents, 100, 268, 293 - -Culham, 415 - -Cumin, William, 85 - -Curci. _See_ COURCI - -"Custodes" distinct from sheriffs, 297 - - -D - -Dammartin, William de, 53 - -Danfront, Picard de, 141 - -Danish district, peculiar payments in the, 289 - -Danvers, Henry, 232 - -Dapifer, Eudo, 154, 328; - his fief and office, 167, 173 - -————, Hamo, 431 - -————, Hubert, 382 - -David, King of Scots, with Henry I. (as earl), 429, 430; - invades England, 16; - joins the Empress, 80, 84; - at her court, 123, 124; - knights Henry, 409; - his earldom, 181, 192 - -Dean, Forest of, 56 - -Dedham (Essex), 181, 400-404 - -Deforcement, 351 - -Depden (Essex), 90, 140, 141 - -Derby, earldom of, 193, 270, 271 - -————, earl of. _See_ FERRERS - -Devizes, castle of, 46; - Empress flees to, 133; - its story, 134, 386; - councils of the Empress at, 165; - young Henry at, 408, 409; - charter granted at, 417, 418 - -Devon, earldom of, 271, 272, 296 - -————, "tertius denarius" of, 296 - -————, Baldwin (de Redvers), earl of, 93, 125, 172, 183 - -"Dialogus de Scaccario," the, 154, 293, 304, 312, 322, 376, 425 - -"Diffidatio," the, 28, 284, 285 - -Diham. _See_ DEDHAM - -Dinan, Gotso (or Goceas) de, 409, 418 - -Dispenser, Robert le, 154, 314, 315; - his inheritance, 313 - -Dodnash Priory, foundation of, 385 - -D'Oilli. _See_ OILLI - -Domesday values, 101, 102, 140, 241, 361; - the "tertius denarius" in, 287-291 - -Domfront. _See_ DANFRONT - -"Domina," the Empress as, 14, 56, 57, 63, 67, 70, 73-75, 80, 83 - -"Dominus," the king as, 14, 70, 73, 74 - -Dorset, earldom of, 95, 181, 193, 194, 271, 272, 277. _See_ MOHUN - -————, "tertius denarius" of, 291 - -Douai, Walter de, his fief, 141 - -Dover, Stephen at, 1; - granted to Earl of Gloucester, 2; - held against Stephen, 2, 94; - Henry II. at, 237; - a "castellum," 332 - -———— Castle, 340, 345 - -Dower, 385 - -Droitwich, 440 - -Dublin Castle, 331 - -Dugdale, his errors, 37, 38, 44, 87, 166, 327, 388, 391 - -Dunstanville, Alan de, 123, 325 - -————, Robert de, 236, 418 - -Durham, Stephen at, 16 - -————, see of, contest for, 85; - privileges of, 112 - -————, bishops of, Ranulf (Flambard), 384; - ——Geoffrey, 265 - - -E - -"Eadintune," 306, 307 - -Earldoms, always of a county, 273, 320; - or joint counties, 191-193, 273; - hereditary, 53, 242, 440; - formula of creation, 97, 187, 191, 238; - of confirmation, 89, 97, 188, 190, 238; - dealings of Henry II. with, 234, 239, 274-277 - -Earls, their privileges, 52, 93, 98, 143, 160, 169, 181, 182, 235, 292; - at siege of Winchester, 128; - at Stephen's court, 139, 144, 159; - origin of their titles, 144, 181, 191, 272, 273, 320, 321; - their "third penny," 239, 240, 269, 287-296 - -————, Stephen's, 266, 270; - dates of their creation, 270, 271; - choice of their titles, 272; - their alleged poverty, 267, 269; - not "fiscal," 267-277, 440; - their alleged deposition, 274-277 - -Easton (Essex), 141 - -Edgware, 440 - -Edward I., his dealings with London, 358; - with Nottingham, 359 - -Eglinus (? de Furnis), 53 - -Ellis, Mr. W. S., on the arms of Mandeville, 394; - of Sackville, 393; - of De Vere, 395 - -Elmdon (Essex), 143 - -Elton, Mr., on Mr. Chester Waters, 421; - on Mr. Loftie, 436 - -Ely, Stephen marches on, 48; - Geoffrey despatched against, 161, 411; - Geoffrey occupies, 209, 215; - Geoffrey's doings at, 213, 215, 218; - Stephen's vengeance on, 214; - famine and misery at, 219 - -————, Nigel, bishop of, 45; - at Stephen's court, 262, 263; - rebels, 48; - joins the Empress, 64, 161, 411; - attends her court, 82, 83, 93, 314; - appeals to Rome against Stephen, 161, 411; - restored to his see, 162, 412; - visits the Empress, 208; - goes to Rome, 208, 209; - returns, 215; - with Henry II., 236 - -————, William, prior of, 83 - -Emperor, style of the, 300, 301 - -Epping Forest. _See_ WALTHAM - -Esegar (the staller), succeeded by the Mandevilles, 37; - sheriff and portreeve, 353, 354 - -"Esendona," 286 - -Espec, Walter, 263, 385 - -Essex, hereditary shrievalty of, 92, 109, 142, 150, 166 - -————, ———— justiciarship of, 92, 105, 109, 142, 150, 167 - -————, "firma" of, 92, 142, 150, 166, 298, 360 - -————, "third penny" of, 89, 92, 235, 237, 239 - -————, earldom of, created by Stephen, 51-53, 97, 270, 271; - confirmed by the Empress, 89; - assigned to Geoffrey the younger, 234, 417; - re-created by Henry II., 234-239; - extinct, 243 - -————, escheatorship of, 92, 439 - -————, forest of, 376-378 - -————, earls of. _See_ MANDEVILLE and FITZ PIERS - -————, Henry of, 52, 172, 183 (?), 195, 236, 268, 326, 327, 391, 393 - -————, Robert of, 52, 391 - -————, Swegen of, 52, 391 - -————, Alice of, 169, 390 - -Eu, the count of, 158 - -Eugene III., Pope, 224, 251, 258, 416 - -Eustace, son and heir of Stephen, his betrothal, 47; - his intended coronation, 7, 250, 259 - -Evreux, Audoen, bishop of, 262, 263 - -"Excambion," formula of, 102, 167, 180-182, 230 - -Exchequer system, 108, 293, 352, 355, 360, 400; - not destroyed by the Anarchy, 99, 142, 154 - -————, pensions on the, 267-269, 274 - -Exeter, held against Stephen, 24 - -————, William, bishop of, 265 - -————, earldom of, 272. _See_ DEVON - -————, "third penny" of, 289 - -————, Baldwin, (sheriff) of, 289, 329 - -————, ————, his wife Emma, 329 - -————, ————, Robert, son of, 329 - -————, ————, Richard, son of, 329, 428 - -———— Castle, 343 - -Eynsford, William de, 158, 298, 360 - -Eyton, Mr., on the charters to Geoffrey, 41-44, 86, 97; - to Aubrey de Vere, 179; - on the charters of the Empress, 67; - on Richard de Luci, 146; - on Robert de Vere, 147; - his MSS., 44, 121; - on the Tewkesbury charter, 431 - - -F - -Fecamp, Roger de, 46, 263 - -Fenland campaign, 209-212 - -Ferrers, Robert de (Earl of Derby), 13, 94, 143, 146, 159, 263, 266, 415 - -Feudalism, its aims, 105, 108, 109, 111, 176, 372. _See also_ "DOMINUS," - "DIFFIDATIO" - -Feversham Abbey, 147 - -Fiennes, Sybil de, 147 - -"Firma burgi," 361-363 - -———— comitatus," 99, 102, 142, 150, 154, 156, 298, 313, 360, 362; - its constituents, 100, 287, 293, 361 - -"Fiscus," meaning of, 268 - -Fitz (_Filius_) Adam, Ralf, 190 - -———— ————, Warine, 190 - -———— Ailb', William, 190 - -———— "Ailric," Robert, 190 - -———— Alan, Roger, 310, 311 - -———— ————, John, 316 - -———— ————, Walter, 123 - -———— ————, William, 123, 125, 418 - -———— Algod, Ralf, 436 - -———— Alvred, William, 53, 229, 230 - -———— Baldwin. _See_ EXETER - -———— Bigot, John, 385 - -———— Brian, Ralf, 142 - -———— Count, Brian, with Henry I, 265, 431; - meets Earl of Gloucester, 281; - is besieged and relieved, _ib._; - at Stephen's court, 19, 262, 263; - escorts the Empress, 58, 82, 83, 93, 125, 130, 135, 170, 182, - 286, 314; - his letter, 251, 261 - -———— ————, Otwel, 307 - -———— ————, Reginald, 320 - -———— Ebrard, Ralf, 305 - -———— Edith, Robert (son of Henry I.), 66, 82, 94, 125, 129, 170, - 183, 234, 418, 434, 435 - -———— Ernald, William, 53, 229 - -———— ————, Ranulf, 229 - -———— Frodo, Alan, 189, 440 - -———— Gerold, Henry, 229, 230 - -———— ————, Robert, 142 - -———— ————, Ralf, 142 - -———— ————, Warine, 190, 228, 229, 236, 241 - -———— Gilbert. _See_ CLARE - -———— ————, John (the marshal), 82, 125, 129-132, 171, 182, 183, 234, - 314, 409, 416. _See also_ "HISTOIRE" - -———— ————, William. _See_ CHANCELLORS - -———— Gosbert, Robert, 436 - -———— Hamon, Robert, 382, 422 - -———— Heldebrand, Robert, 95, 171, 183 - -———— ————, Richard, 95 - -———— Herlwin, Ralf, 309, 310 - -———— ————, his sons, 310 - -———— ————, Herlwin, 310 - -———— ————, William, 310 - -———— Hervey, William, 142 - -———— Hubert, Robert, 134, 281 - -———— Humfrey, Geoffrey, 190 - -———— ————, Robert, 190 - -———— Jocelin, William, 402, 404 - -———— John, Payne, 11, 12, 263, 265, 378 - -———— ————, Eustace, 159, 264, 378 - -———— Liulf, Forn, 434 - -———— Martin, Robert, 94, 135 - -———— Miles, William, 399 - -———— Muriel, Abraham, 229 - -———— Osbern, William (Earl of Hereford), 154 - -———— Osbert, Richard, 53, 229, 231 - -———— Other, Walter, 169 - -———— Oto, William, 86 - -———— Otwel, William, 169, 229, 231 - -———— Piers, Geoffrey, Earl of Essex, 39 - -———— Ralf, Brian, 142 - -———— ———— (fitz Ebrard), John, 305, 306, 436 - -———— ———— ————, Robert, 305, 306 - -———— Richard. _See_ CLARE - -———— ————, Osbert, 53, 231 - -———— ————, Roger, 169, 390-392 - -———— Robert, Walter (of Dunmow), 169 - -———— ————, William, 142 - -———— ———— (fitz Walter), John, 52 - -———— Roger, Robert, 391 - -———— Roy. _See_ CORNWALL, FITZ EDITH, GLOUCESTER - -———— ————, Richard (son of Henry I.), 423, 427, 434 - -———— Urse, Richard, 53, 159 - -———— ————, Reginald, 53 - -———— Walter, Fulcred, 360, 363 - -———— ————, Geoffrey, 229 - -———— ————, Ranulf, 229 - -———— ————, Robert, 385 - -———— ————, William, constable of Windsor, 169 - -———— Wimarc, Robert, 391 - -Flanders, Count Robert of, 176, 177, 380 - -Flemings, expulsion of the, 275 - -Florence of Worcester, his continuater's chronology, 278, 279, 284, 285; - accuracy, 437, 438 - -Foliot, Gilbert, attends council at Rome, 251, 253; - his letter to Brian Fitz Count, 251, 252, 254-257, 261; - becomes Abbot of Gloucester (1139), 285; - Bishop of Hereford (1148), 251, 260 - -Fordham (Camb.), 209, 211, 220, 222 - -Fordwich, "third penny" of, 290 - -Forests. _See_ ASSARTS - -France, King of, 171, 177, 183 - -Fraxineto. _See_ FRESNE - -Freeman, Professor, his errors, 16, 62, 63, 68, 224, 250, 261, 290, - 291, 294, 325, 333, 335, 338, 346, 349; - Mr. J. Parker on, 280 - -Fresne, Roger du, 320 - -Fulcinus, Albot, 231 - -Fulham, 117 - - -G - -Gainsborough Castle, 159 - -Gamlingay (Camb.), 120, 305 - -Gant, Walter de, 264, 266, 428 - -————, Gilbert de, 327 - -Geoffrey of Anjou, 167, 168, 171, 183, 184; - was to succeed Henry I., 33; - summons Stephen before the Pope, 10, 259; - invited to England, 165, 177, 195; - sends his son to England in his stead, 33, 185, 198; - detains the Earl of Gloucester, 198; - conquers Normandy, 418; - cedes Normandy to Henry, 251, 259; - admits no legate, 260 - -Gerardmota, Simon de, 120 - -Gerpenville. _See_ JARPENVILLE - -"Gersoma," 298, 360, 363, 366 - -"Gesta Stephani," its accuracy impugned, 12, 409; - confirmed, 62, 69, 115, 130, 132 - -"Gialla." _See_ LONDON - -Gifard, John, 364 - -Giffard, Elyas, 409 - -"Ging'." _See_ ING - -Glanville, Ranulf de, 385, 390 - -————, ————, his wife Bertha, 385; - his daughter Maud, 385 - -Gloucester, Empress reaches, 55, 278; - leaves it, 57; - returns to it, 115; - leaves it again, 123; - flees to it, 134 - -———— Castle, 13, 329, 330 - -————, earldom of, its creation, 420-422, 431-434 - -————, honour of, 11 - -————, Robert (son of Henry I.), earl of, 181; - marries heiress of Robert fitz Hamon, 422; - his earliest attestation (Rouen, 1113), 423; - attends his father at Reading, _ib._; - at the battle of Brémulé, _ib._; - at Rouen, 424, 426; - in England, 429, 430; - created Earl of Gloucester, 432; - attends his father at Westminster, 433; - at Portsmouth, 432; - his increasing greatness, 434; - attests charters at Westminster, 306; - at Northampton, 265; - receives lands in Kent, 2; - does homage to Stephen at Oxford, 22, 23, 263; - "defies" Stephen, 28, 284; - lands at Arundel with the Empress, 55, 279; - reaches Bristol, 55, 281; - escorts the Empress to Winchester, 58; - to Oxford, 68; - said to have created earldom of Cornwall, _ib._; - at Reading, 82; - in London, 87, 93, 286; - advises moderation in vain, 114; - withdraws from London, 115; - goes to Oxford with Maud, 124, 314; - visits Winchester, 124; - joins in its siege, 126, 127; - captured at Stockbridge, 133; - released and goes to Bristol, 135; - removes with Maud to Oxford, 163, 170, 182; - his treaty with Earl Miles, 379; - goes to Normandy, 163, 165, 184, 196, 379; - returns and captures Wareham, 185, 198, 405; - joins Maud at Wallingford, 199, 406; - is with her at Devizes, 234, 417; - routs Stephen at Wilton, 407; - dies, 408; - his _Carta_, 375, 382; - his _tertius denarius_, 292-294; - his London soke, 436; - his wife, 381 - -————, William, earl of, 380, 409, 419; - confused with his father, 410 - -————, Walter, abbot of, 265 - -————, Gilbert, abbot of. _See_ FOLIOT - -————, Miles de (Earl of Hereford), employed by Henry I. (1130), 297; - with him at Northampton (1131), 265; - meets Stephen at Reading (1136), 12; - obtains charters from him, 11, 13, 14, 28; - attends his Easter court as constable, 19, 263; - and witnesses his Oxford charter, 263; - is with him at siege of Shrewsbury (1138), 285; - abandons Stephen (1139), 128, 284; - receives the Empress, 55, 60; - obtains charter from her, 56; - loses constableship, 285; - relieves Brian fitz Count, 281; - sacks Worcester and captures Hereford, 282; - escorts the Empress to Winchester (1141), 58, 65; - to Reading (as constable), 82; - to London, 83, 93, 286; - to Gloucester, 123; - is created by her Earl of Hereford, 97, 123, 271, 273, 288, 315, 328; - is with her at Oxford, 123, 314; - and at siege of Winchester, 125; - escapes to Gloucester and Bristol, 135; - with the Empress at Oxford, 170, 182; - his treaty with the Earl of Gloucester, 379; - his grant to Llanthony, 329; - his death, 276; - his son Roger, _see_ HEREFORD, Earls of; - his son Mahel, 382 - -————, Walter de (father of Miles), 13, 428 - -Grantmesnil, Hugh de, 289 - -Greenfield (Linc.), 169 - -Greinville, Richard de, 382 - -Greys Thurrock (Essex), 181 - -Guisnes, _Comté_ of, 188, 398. _See_ VERE, Aubrey de - -————, Manasses, Count of, 189, 397 - -————, Ralf de, 190 - - -H - -Hairon, Albany de, 286 - -Ham (Essex), 141 - -"Hamslep," Hugh de, 419 - -Handfasting. _See_ AFFIDATIO - -Harold, his accession compared with Stephen's, 8, 253, 437 - -Hartshorne, Mr., on Rochester Castle, 337 - -Hastings, William de, 171 - -Hatfield Broad Oak (Essex), 100, 140, 141, 149 - -"Hattele," church of, 233 - -Haughley (Suffolk), 326 - -Haye, Ralf de, 159 - -Hearne as a critic, 375 - -Hedenham (Bucks.), 337 - -Hedingham (Essex), 402 - -Helion, barony of, 229 - -————, Robert de, 143 - -————, William de, 181, 194 - -Henry I., secures Winchester, 63; - his style, 25, 432; - at St. Evroul and Rouen, 423, 426; - at Brampton and Westminster, 428; - marries Adeliza, 74, 426, 429; - visits Winchester, 426, 421, 430, 432; - Portsmouth, 432; - Westminster, 433; - secures succession to his children, 2, 30-32, 34; - dies, 322; - his widow's dower, 324; - his gifts to Cluny, 254; - his reforms, 104, 298; - his ministers, 111, 418; - his exactions, 101, 105, 150, 360, 361, 366; - his forest policy, 377; - his dealings with London, 347, 358, 359, 365-367; - his chaplains, 427; - his military architecture, 333, 334, 341-343, 345, 346; - his charter to Eudo Dapifer, 328; - his treaty with the Count of Flanders, 176, 380; - his knowledge of English, 424 - -————, his son William, heir to the crown, 30, 427; - married, 426; - drowned, 434 - -————, his children. _See_ MAUD, GLOUCESTER, FITZ EDITH, FITZ ROY - -————, his widow. _See_ ADELIZA - -Henry II., mentioned in charters of the Empress, 171, 183, 417, 418; - confirms his mother's charter, 184-186, 384, 418; - his hereditary right, 186, 200; - lands with his uncle (1142), 198, 405; - joins the Empress, 199, 406; - resides at Bristol, 407; - his gifts to St. Augustine's, 408; - lands afresh (1149), 279, 408; - visits Devizes, 409; - knighted at Carlisle, 408; - unsupported, 409; - leaves England, 410; - his third visit and negotiations, 176, 386, 418; - strength of his position, 35; - his policy, 112, 372, 378; - his alienations of demesne, 269; - his charters to Aubrey de Vere, 237, 239; - to Hugh Bigod, 239; - to Earl of Arundel, 240; - to Wallingford, 200; - his dealings with London, 358, 367, 370, 372, 440 - -Henry III., his charter to London, 358 - -Henry VIII., confirms charter of the Empress, 179, 328 - -Henry (V.), the Emperor, 300, 301 - -Henry of Scotland. _See_ HUNTINGDON - -Heraclius, the Patriarch, consecrates the Temple church, 225 - -Heraldry. _See_ ARMS, QUARTERLY - -Hereditary right. _See_ CROWN - -Hereford, Stephen at, 48; - seized by Miles, 282 - -————, its "tertius denarius," 288 - -———— Castle, 328, 329 - -————, earldom of, created by the Empress, 97, 123, 187, 271, 273 - -————, earl of, William Fitzosbern, 154, 276 - -————, earls of. _See_ GLOUCESTER - -————, Roger, earl of, 234, 329, 380, 382, 409, 419 - -————, Richard ("de Sigillo"), bishop of, 427, 428 - -————, Robert, bishop of, 46, 64, 82, 83, 93, 262, 263, 265 - -Hertford (or "Clare"), earldom of, 39, 40, 146, 270-272 - -————, Gilbert, earl of, 143, 145, 159, 271, 276 - -————, Roger, earl of, 236 - -————, mills of, 286 - -Hertfordshire, shrievalty of, 39, 142, 150, 166; - justiciarship of, 142, 150, 167; - "firma" of, 142, 150, 166 - -Hexham, John of, his accuracy confirmed, 19 - -Hinckford hundred (Essex), 404 - -"Histoire de Guillaume le Maréchal," extracts from, 130-133; - its authority, 130, 194 - -_Historia Pontificalis_, editorial errors in, 253 - -Holland, Great (Essex), 141 - -Howard, Thomas, 316 - -Howlett, Mr., on the landing of the Empress, 278-280; - on an unknown landing by Henry II., 409, 410 - -"Hugate," 232 - -Huitdeniers, Osbert, 170, 374, 375, 382 - -————, Philip, 375 - -Humez, Richard de, 236, 419 - -Huntingdon, its "tertius denarius," 288 - -————, Henry of, his chronology discussed, 407 - -————, Henry (of Scotland), earl of, 19, 192, 262, 263, 265 - -————, earldom of, 191-193, 265, 272 - -Hyde Abbey burnt, 127 - - -I - -Ickleton (Camb.), 141 - -"Inga" (Essex), 140, 186 - -Ing, Goisbert de, 142 - -————, Hugh de, 185, 186, 190, 384 - -Innocent, Pope, hears Maud's appeal against Stephen (1136), 250, 252; - dismisses it, 9, 257; - "confirms" Stephen, 9, 257, 258, 260; - writes to Stephen, 412; - to Henry of Winchester, _ib._ - -Ipra. _See_ YPRES - -Ipswich, "third penny" of, 290 - -Irvine, Mr., on Rochester Castle, 338 - -Issigeac (Perigord), 247 - - -J - -Jarpenville, David de, 231 - -————, ————, Symon, his brother, 231 - -————, Geoffrey de, 229, 230 - -Jerusalem, pilgrimage to, 306, 308 - -Jingles in charters, 241 - -John, his charters to London, 358, 371 - -Juga. _See_ INGA _and_ ING - -Jurisdiction, the struggle for, 105, 108, 111 - -_Justicia_, the, localized, 105, 373; - termed "capitalis," 106; - differentiated from the sheriff, 107, 109, 153; - feudalized, 109; - represented by "coroners," 110; - has precedence of the sheriff, 110 - - -K - -Kent, faithful to Stephen, 2, 138 - -Kingham (Oxon), 230-233 - -Kirton-in-Lindsey (Linc.), 159 - -Knightsbridge, the Londoners meet kings at, 84 - -Knights' service, grants of, 91, 103, 142, 155, 167, 189, 439 - - -L - -Laci, Hugh de, 331 - -————, Ilbert de, 263 - -_Læsio fidei_, 9, 387 - -Lea, the river, 168, 175, 337 - -Ledet, Wiscard, 231 - -Legate, the papal. _See_ WINCHESTER, Henry, bishop of; - CANTERBURY, Theobald, archbishop of - -Leicester, "third penny" of, 289 - -————, Robert, earl of, 146, 154, 236, 265, 380, 415, 433 - -Leicestershire, "tertius denarius" of, 295 - -Le Mans, tower of, 336 - -Leofstan (of London), 309 - -Leominster, Stephen at, 282 - -Lewes Priory, 391 - -Lexden hundred (Essex), 378, 404 - -_Librata terræ_, the, 99, 104, 140, 141, 241, 305, 314 - -Liege homage, 315 - -Lincoln, excludes the sheriff, 362; - its "firma burgi," 362, 363; - Stephen besieges, 46, 159, 440; - battle of, 54, 56, 140, 148, 149 - -———— Castle, constableship of, 160 - -————, earldom of, 271, 325 - -————, Robert (I.), bishop of, 329, 433 - -————, Alexander, bishop of, 51, 64, 82, 83, 93, 123, 262, 265, 416 - -————, Robert (II.), bishop of, 236 - -————, William, earl of, 146, 159, 271, 415 - -Lisieux, Arnulf, bishop of, Stephen's envoy (1136), 252, 253, 260, 389 - -Lisures, Warner de, 120, 320 - -————, William de, 231 - -Little Hereford, Stephen at, 282 - -Lodnes, Ralf de, 190 - -Loftie, Mr. W. J., his strange errors, 152, 349-351, 354-356, 364, 436 - -London, its name latinized, 347; - inseparable from Middlesex, 347, 352, 353, 357, 359; - not a corporate unit, 356; - its organization territorial, 357; - earliest list of its wards, 351, 435, 436; - its _auxilium_, 352 - -————, portreeve of, 439; - ignored by Henry I., 350, 351; - difficulty concerning, 354, 356; - replaced by Norman _vicecomes_, 353, 354 - -————, mayor of, 356, 357, 373, 436 - -————, chamberlain of, 355, 366 - -————, Tower of, its custody, 439; - held by the Mandevilles, 38, 89, 117, 141, 143, 149, 156, 166; - its importance, 98, 113, 119, 139, 164; - Stephen at, 48; - surrendered by Geoffrey, 207; - explanation of its name, 336; - its inner ward, 334 - -————, Guildhall (?) of, earliest mention of, 436 - -————, St. Michael's, Cheap, 309, 310 - -————, bishops of, Maurice, 68, 328; - —— Gilbert, 265; - —— Robert ("de Sigillo"), 45, 67, 117, 118, 123, 167, 194, 402; - —— Richard, 236, 370 - -————. _See also_ TEMPLE; CNIHTENGILD - -London and Middlesex, spoken of as London, 348, 351, 372; - as Middlesex, 347; - sheriff of, replaces portreeve, 353, 354, 356; - _firma of_, 142, 150, 151, 166, 347-349, 352, 355, 357-359, 362, 366, - 371, 372, 440; - shrievalty of, 110, 141, 150, 166, 347-349, 358, 359, 363, 364, 367, - 372, 439; - justiciarship of, 110, 141, 150, 167, 347, 373 - -London and Middlesex, sheriffs of, Esegar, 353; - —— Ulf, 353, 354; - —— Geoffrey de Mandeville (I.), 354, 439; - —— William de Eynsford, 360 - _See_ also MANDEVILLE - -————, justiciars of, Gervase (de Cornhill), 120, 121, 373; - —— Geoffrey de Mandeville, 141, 150, 167, 373 - -Londoners, the, obtain from Henry I. shrievalty of Middlesex, 347, 349, - 359, 363, 364, 366; - dislike his system, 366; - elect Stephen, 2; - their compact with him, 3, 27, 247-249; - faithful to him, 49, 116, 354; - at the election of the Empress, 69; - slow to receive her, 81; - admit her conditionally, 84, 248; - harassed by the Queen, 114; - expel the Empress, 115, 117; - join the Queen, 119, 128; - record Stephen's release, 136; - abandoned by him to Geoffrey, 153; - whose mortal foes they are, 168, 174; - treatment of, by Henry II., 370-372, 440; - join Simon de Montfort, 358; - their charters from the Conqueror, 354, 439; - from Henry I., 109, 347, 356, 359, 364; - from Henry II., 367-370, 440; - from Richard I., 371; - from John, 358, 371; - from Henry III., 348; - their _communa_, 116, 247, 357, 373, 439; - their alleged early liberties, 152, 372, 440; - their "wardmoot," 370 - -Lords' Reports, error in, 39 - -Lovel, Ralf, 94 - -Luci, Richard de, 101, 109, 112, 137, 146, 373; - with Stephen at Norwich, 49; - at Canterbury, 144; - at Ipswich, 158; - at Oxford, 201; - with Henry II., 236 - -Lucius, Pope, 208, 215, 258, 412 - -Ludgershall, the Empress flees to, 133 - -"Luffenham," 314 - - -M - -Magn', Ralf, 230 - -Maldon (Essex), 90, 92, 99, 100, 102, 140 - -Malet, Robert (I.), great chamberlain, 180, 395 - -————, Robert (II.), 93, 262 - -————, William, 93, 436 - -Malmesbury, Stephen at, 47, 281 - -————, William of, his accuracy confirmed, 11, 61; - impugned, 69, 115, 132; - discussed, 283, 344, 438 - -Maminot, Walchelin, 2, 94, 264, 286, 314, 418 - -Mandeville family, origin of, 37; - heirs of, 232, 233, 243, 244; - charters of, 228-233, 390; - pedigree of, 392 - -Mandeville, Geoffrey de (I.), 89, 235, 236, 358; - receives fief from the Conqueror, 37; - founds Hurley Priory, 38; - sheriff of three counties, 142, 166; - said to be "portreeve," 152; - and may have been, 439 - -————, Geoffrey de (II.), Earl of Essex, 181-184; - his parentage, 37; - succeeds his father, 40; - at Stephen's court (1136), 19, 263, 264; - detains Constance in the Tower, 47; - his first charter from the king, 41-53, 292; - created Earl of Essex, 52, 270, 272; - with Stephen at Norwich, 49; - strengthens the Tower, 81; - his first charter from the Empress, 87-113, 292; - made justice, sheriff, and escheator of Essex, 92; - deserts the Empress, 119; - seizes Bishop of London, 117; - obtains a charter from the Queen, 118; - his second charter from the king, 138-156; - made justice and sheriff of Herts. and of London and Middlesex, 141, 142; - with Stephen at Ipswich, 158; - sent against Ely, 161; - aspires to be king-maker, 164; - his second charter from the Empress, 165-178, 183; - obtains charter for Aubrey de Vere, 183, 184; - his plot against Stephen, 195; - is with him at Oxford, 201; - arrested by Stephen, 202-206; - surrenders his castles, 207; - breaks into revolt, _ib._; - secures Ely, 209; - seizes Ramsey Abbey, 210; - holds the fenland, 211; - sacks Cambridge, 212; - evades Stephen, 213; - his atrocities, 214, 218; - wounded at Burwell, 221; - dies at Mildenhall, 222, 276; - fate of his corpse, 224-226; - his alleged effigy, 226, 395; - his heirs, 232, 244; - he founds Walden Abbey, 45; - burns Waltham, 323; - his policy, 98, 153, 164, 173, 439; - his greatness, 164, 203, 223, 323; - his arms, 392-396 - -————, Geoffrey de (II.), his sister Beatrice (de Say), 169, 392, 393 - -————, ————, his wife Rohese (de Vere), 171, 229, 232, 388, 390-393 - -————, ————, his father-in-law, Aubrey de Vere, 81 - -————, his brother-in-law, Earl Aubrey, 178. _See also_ VERE - -————, Geoffrey de (III.), Earl of Essex, 112, 169, 238; - succeeds his father, 233; - styled earl, 238, 417; - his charter from Henry II., 235; - procures his father's absolution, 225; - his charter to Ernulf, 230, 231; - his grant of Sawbridgeworth, 241; - his death, 242; - struggle for his corpse, 226 - -————, ————, his wife Eustachia, 229 - -————, Geoffrey de (IV.), Earl of Essex, 229; - confused with Geoffrey de Mandeville (II.), 39 - -————, William de (I.), constable of the Tower, 38, 166, 169, 392 - -————, William de (II.), Earl of Essex, 169, 390; - his charter to Ernulf, 231; - succeeds his brother as earl, 242; - devoted to Henry II., 243; - becomes Great Justiciar, _ib._; - dies, _ib._ - -————, Ernulf (or Arnulf, or Ernald, or Hernald) de, grants to him, 141, - 142, 149, 155, 167, 168, 174; - fortifies Wood Walton, 211; - holds Ramsey Abbey, 223; - surrenders it, 227; - exiled, _ib._; - reappears, 228, 238; - occurs in family charters, 229-233; - disinherited, 233 - -————, ————, his wife Aaliz, 232, 233 - -————, ————, his son Geoffrey, 232 - -————, ————, his son Ralf, 231 - -————, ————, his grandson Geoffrey, 232 - -————, ————, his heir Geoffrey, 229 - -————, Geoffrey de, 233 - -————, Hugh de, 232 - -————, Robert de, 232 - -————, ————, Ralf, his brother, 232 - -————, Walter de, 229, 230 - -————, William de, 233 - -Mansel, William, 383 - -Marmion, Robert, 313 - -Marshal, Gilbert the, 171 - -————, John the. _See_ FITZ-GILBERT - -Martel, Eudo (?), 263 - -————, Geoffrey, 147 - -————, William, 46, 144, 146, 158, 159, 206, 262, 263, 320, 378, 407, 416 - -Masculus, Osbert, 436 - -Mathew, Master, 407 - -Matilda (of Boulogne), Stephen's queen, 262; - advances on London, 114; - her charter to Geoffrey, 118-121, 139; - rallies her party, 119; - her charter to Gervase, 120; - gains the legate, 122; - wears crown at Canterbury, 138, 143; - visits York, 157; - her charters and seal, 302; - at Barking, 320 - -Matom, Alan de, 233 - -————, Serlo de, 89 - -Maud, the Empress, her legitimacy, 256; - marries the Emperor, 300; - oath sworn to her (1127), 6, 10, 31, 255; - appeals to Rome (1136), 8, 32, 253-257; - her claim to the throne, 29-34; - lands in England (1139), 55, 278-280, 283; - reaches Bristol, 55; - resides at Gloucester, 56; - joined by Miles, 56, 285; - joined by Bishop Nigel, 161; - received at Winchester (1141), 57, 64, 79; - her style, 63-67, 70-77, 300-302; - visits Wilton and Oxford, 65-67; - elected "Domina," 58-61, 69; - forfeits Count Theobald, 102, 140; - visits Reading, 66, 82; - advances to St. Albans, 83; - reaches London, 84; - her intended coronation, 78, 80, 84, 302; - her Valoines charter, 286; - her first charter to Geoffrey, 86-113, 149-155, 238; - deals with see of Durham, 85; - expelled from London, 85, 115, 117; - flees to Gloucester, 115; - returns to Oxford, 123; - her Beauchamp charter, 313-315; - marches on Winchester, 124; - besieges the legate, 126-128; - flees from Winchester, 130, 132, 133; - reaches Gloucester, 134; - visits Bristol, 135; - again returns to Oxford, 163; - holds councils at Devizes, 165; - sends for her husband, 165, 177; - her second charter to Geoffrey, 165-177; - her charter to Aubrey de Vere, 179-184, 187, 190-195; - is besieged in Oxford, 198; - escapes to Wallingford, 199; - visited by Bishop Nigel, 208; - quarters her followers on Wilts, 230; - her charter to Geoffrey de Mandeville the younger, 233; - to Geoffrey Ridel, 234, 417; - her court, 64, 82, 95, 124, 178, 286; - her earls, 271-273; - her seal, 299-303; - her arrogance, 96, 114, 367; - her gifts to Cluny, 254 - -Mauduit, Ralf, 142 - -Mayenne, Juhel de, 172, 183 - -Meduana. _See_ MAYENNE - -Melford, Geoffrey de, 190 - -————, Helias de, 190 - -_Mercata terræ_, 232 - -Merton, charter to, 433 - -Meulan, Robert, count of, 329 - -————, Waleran, count of, 46, 145, 262, 263, 271, 313, 314; - escorts the Empress, 55; - faithful to Stephen, 120; - his brother Hugh, 171 - -Middlesex, comprised London, 347; - archdeaconry of, 348. - _See_ LONDON AND MIDDLESEX - -Mildenhall (Suffolk), Geoffrey dies at, 222, 223 - -Moch' (? Woch[endona]), William de, 229 - -Mohun (Moion), William de (Earl of Somerset or Dorset), 93, 125, - 266, 272, 277 - -Money-lending denounced, 311, 312, 440 - -Monks Horton Priory, 148, 158, 326 - -Montfort, Hugh de, 148, 326 - -————, Robert de, 148, 327 - -————, Thurstan de, 65, 327 - -Montgomery, Arnulf de, 331 - -————, Roger de, 322 - -Montreuil, 331, 338 - -Mortgage. _See_ VADIMONIUM - -'Mottes,' shell-keeps termed, 328, 330, 333, 336, 337 - -Mountnessing (Essex), 169 - - -N - -Napier, origin of the name, 324 - -"Navium applicationes," 286, 440 - -"Nepos Huberti," Roger, 305,306, 308-310 - -————, ————, Ingenolda, his wife, 305, 308, 310 - -Neufbourg, Robert de, 52 - -Neufmarché, Henry de, 320 - -Nevill, Hugh de, 310 - -Newburgh, William of, his chronicle, 47, 203, 205 - -Newcastle, keep of, 339, 346 - -Newport (Essex), 89, 90, 92, 99, 100, 140, 156 - -Newtimber (Sussex), 325 - -Norfolk, earldom of, 191, 270, 271, 273, 277. - _See_ BIGOD - -Norhale, William de, 231 - -Northampton, Stephen ill at, 160, 164; - its burgesses, 414 - -————, Simon (de St. Liz or Silvanecta), earl of, 120, 143, 145, 159, - 192, 262-264, 276 - -Northamptonshire, earldom of, 192, 264, 272 - -Norwich, Stephen at, 49 - -————, Ebrard, bishop of, 83, 262, 263, 265 - -————, William, bishop of, 45 - -————, John, bishop of, 318 - -Novo burgo. _See_ NEUFBOURG - -———— mercato. _See_ NEUFMARCHé - -Noyon, battle of, 423, 427 - -Nuers, Ralf de, 230 - -Nunant, Roger de, 125 - - -O - -Octodenarii. _See_ HUITDENIERS - -Oilli, Fulk d', 46 - -————, Henry d', 94, 434 - -————, Robert d', 46, 65, 66, 94, 171, 183, 263, 434 - -————, Roger d', 125 - -Ordgar (of London), 309 - -Osney Priory, 171; - charters to, 232 - -Osonville, Sewal de, 231 - -Ottdevers. _See_ HUITDENIERS - -Ou, Hugh d', 229, 230 - -————, Robert d', 436 - -————, William d', 53, 142, 170 - -Oxeaie, Richard de, 205 - -————, Walkelin de, 205, 206 - -Oxford, Stephen at (1136), 15, 16, 23, 201, 282; - the Empress at, 65, 66, 123, 163, 314; - arrest of the bishops at, 202, 203, 416; - conspiracy against Stephen at (1142), 162, 195, 203, 207; - fortified by the Earl of Gloucester, 197; - stormed by Stephen, 197; - who besieges its castle, 198, 405; - from which the Empress escapes, 199, 405, 406; - leaving it to Stephen, 406 - -————, St. Frideswide's, charter to, 201 - -————, house at, 232 - -————, earl of. _See_ VERE, AUBREY de - -Oxfordshire, earldom of, 181, 194, 239, 240, 270, 271, 295 - -————, "tertius denarius" of, 295 - - -P - -Parage, Philip, 402 - -Paris, Mathew, his accuracy confirmed, 205 - -Park', Isnardus, 314, 315 - -————, ————, his son Nicholas, 314 - -Parker, Mr., on Professor Freeman, 280; - on Rochester Castle, 337 - -Pascal, Pope, anoints the Empress, 257 - -Passelewe, Ralf, 373 - -"Pauper," Hugh (? Earl of Bedford), 171, 270, 276 - -Paynell, Ralf, 94, 171, 183, 286 - -Pechet, Robert, 427 - -Pedigrees, of Gervase de Cornhill, 308, 310; - of Aubrey de Vere, 389; - of the Mandevilles and De Veres, 392; - of William d'Arques, 397; - of Ernulf de Mandeville, 232 - -Pembroke, Gilbert, earl of, 143, 145, 158, 159, 161, 162, 172, 178, - 181-183, 188, 194, 276 - -————, earldom of, 270, 271 - -Percy, William de, 264 - -Peterborough chronicle, the, on the Anarchy, 214, 220, 416 - -Petrivilla. _See_ PIERREVILLE - -Peverel (of London), William, his fief, 90, 91, 140-142 - -———— (of Nottingham), William, 263, 266; - forfeited, 195; - his fief, 181 - -————, Mathew, 143 - -Pharamus. _See_ BOULOGNE - -"Phingria" (Essex), 140 - -Pierreville, Geoffrey de, 320 - -Pincerna, Audoen, 230 - -————, ————, Ralf, brother of, 230 - -————, Geoffrey, 229 - -Pirou, William de, 428 - -Pleas, dread of, 93, 105, 167, 169, 170, 180; - farming of, 108, 287, 293, 295, 361 - -———— of the Crown, 105, 110; - of the forest, 376-378 - -Pleshy (Essex), 207 - -Plessis, Walter de, 229 - -————, William de, 230 - -Ploughteam, importance of the, 218 - -Poitiers, Richard, archdeacon of, 112 - -Pont de l'Arche, William de, 4, 11, 12, 46, 62, 234, 263, 265, 297 - -Popes. _See_ ALEXANDER, CELESTINE, EUGENE, INNOCENT, LUCIUS, PASCAL - -Port, Adam de, (I.) 233, (II.) 428 - -————, ————, Matildis, his wife, 233 - -————, ————, Henry, his brother, 233 - -————, Henry de, 264 - -Portsmouth, alleged landing at, 278-280; - Henry I. at, 432 - -Predevilain, Alfred, 230 - -Presbyter, Vitalis, 413 - -Prittlewell Priory, 391 - -Protection, money exacted for, 415 - -Prudfot, Gilbert, 350, 351 - - -Q - -_Quadripartitus_, quotation from, 312 - -Quarterly coat of Mandeville, the, 392-396 - -"Queen," the Empress styles herself, 63, 64, 66, 83, 302 - - -R - -Radwinter (Essex), 168 - -Raimes, family of de, 399-404; - Roger (I.), 399, 403, 404; - William (I.), 399, 401; - Roger (II.), 181, 399-404; - Robert (I.), 399, 402; - William (II.), 402, 403; - Richard, 400-404; - Robert (II.), 401 - -Rainham (Essex), 141 - -Ramis de. _See_ RAIMES - -Ramsey Abbey, grant of a hundred to, 101; - occupied by Geoffrey, 209; - fortified by him, 210, 211, 213, 216; - claimed by Abbot Walter, 216, 218; - sweats blood, 217; - avenged, 221; - surrendered to the abbot, 223, 227; - compensated for its losses, 225 - -————, Walter, abbot of, 83, 210; - goes to Rome, 215; - returns to Ramsey, 216; - his misery, 217; - at Geoffrey's deathbed, 223 - -————, Daniel, abbot of, 210, 215, 218; - goes to Rome, 216 - -————, William, abbot of, 225 - -Ravengerus, 89 - -Rayne (Essex), 399 - -Reading, Stephen at, 10, 46, 48, 283; - the Empress at, 66, 82 - -————, Anscher, abbot of (1131), 265 - -————, Edward, abbot of (1141), 117 - -Redvers, Baldwin de, 266, 272, 278 - -————, Richard de, 272 - -Reinmund (of London), 435, 436; - his son Azo, _ib._ - -Richard I., his second coronation, 137 - -Richmond, earldom of, 157 - -————, Alan, earl of, 143, 145, 157, 276 - -————, Conan, earl of, 290 - -Ridel, Geoffrey (II.), 417-419; - his grandfather, 417 - -Rochelle, Richard de, 231 - -————, John de, 231 - -Rochester, its early name, 332, 339; - charter to church of, 422 - -———— Castle, 337-339, 345, 346 - -————, Gundulf, bishop of, 334, 337-339 - -————, John, bishop of, 262, 263, 265 - -Rome, appeal of the Empress to, 8, 250-261; - appeals of Bishop Nigel to, 161, 208, 209, 411-413; - Abbot of Ramsey appeals to, 215 - -Romeli. _See_ RUMILLI - -Rouen, Hugh, archbishop of, 116, 262, 263, 412, 413 - -————, the Tower of, 334-336 - -Rumard, Absalom, 172, 183 - -Rumilli, Alan de, 170 - -————, Mathew de, 170 - -————, Robert de, 170 - - -S - -Sablé, Guy de, 172, 183 - -————, Robert de, 172, 183 - -Sackville, William de, 393; - arms of, _ib._ - -Saffron Walden (Essex), 89, 90, 149, 156, 174, 207, 236 - -Sai, Ingelram de, 11-13, 46 - -————, Geoffrey de, 231, 243, 390, 392 - -————, William de, 169, 209, 227, 392, 396 - -St. Albans, the Empress at, 83; - Stephen arrests Geoffrey at, 202-207; - consequent struggle at, 204-206; - abbot of, Geoffrey, 206, 265 - -St. Augustine's, Hugh, abbot of, 265 - -St Briavel's, castle of, 56 - -St. Clare, Hamo de, 263, 264 - -————, Osbert de, 231 - -————, William de, 52 - -St. David's, Bernard, bishop of, 58, 82, 83, 93, 262, 263, 314, 430 - -St. Edmundsbury, Anselm, abbot of, 174; - Ording, abbot of, 189, 439; - William, prior of, 190; - Ralf, sacristan of, 190; - Maurice, dapifer of, 190; - Goscelin and Eudo, monks of, 190 - -St. Evroul, charter to, 423, 426 - -St. Ives, 212, 213 - -St. John, John de, 409 - -St. Liz. _See_ NORTHAMPTON - -St. Osyth's Priory, 389, 390 - -St. Quintin, Richard de, 382 - -Salamon Presbyter, 181 - -Salisbury, Stephen at, 46, 283; - held for the Empress, 407 - -————, earldom of. _See_ WILTSHIRE - -————, bishop of, Roger, builds Devizes Castle, 134; - receives Stephen as king, 4; - attends his coronation, 5; - with him at Reading, 11; - at Westminster, 262, 263; - at Oxford, 262; - repudiates his oath to the Empress, 32, 256; - his death, 46, 48, 282; - his nephew Nigel, 265 (_see_ ELY, bishops of) - -————, Edward de, 404 - -————, Walter de, 46, 264, 266, 276 - -————, ————, Sibyl, his wife, 276 - -————, William de, 125, 276 - -————, Patrick de (Earl of Salisbury or Wilts), 194, 271, 276, 409 - -Saltpans, 440 - -Saltwood (Kent), 326 - -Savigny, charter to, 423 - -Sawbridgeworth (Herts.), 228, 236, 241 - -Scotale, 361, 369 - -Scutage of 1159, the, 400 - -Seals, great, of Stephen, 50; - of Maud, 299, 303 - -————, keepers of the. _See_ SIGILLO, de - -Seez, Arnulf, archdeacon of. _See_ LISIEUX - -————, John, bishop of, 262, 263 - -Sherborne Castle, 146 - -Sheriff, the, as "justicia," 107, 109; - as an officer of the "curia," 108; - as "firmarius," 360-363; - feudalized, 109; - his "third penny," 289; - distinct from the "custos," 297 - -————. _See also_ BAILIFFS - -Ships, toll from, 414, 440 - -Shrewsbury, Stephen besieges, 285 - -Shropshire settled on Queen Adeliza, 322 - -Sigillo, Robert de, 265. _See_ LONDON, bishops of. - -————, Richard de, 427. _See_ HEREFORD, bishops of - -Silvanecta. _See_ NORTHAMPTON - -Soilli, Henry de ("nepos regis"), 262-264 - -Someri, Adam de, 143 - -————, Roger de, 143, 168 - -Somerset, earldom of, 95. _See_ MOHUN - -Sorus, Jordan, 382 - -————, Odo, 382 - -————, Robert, 382 - -Southwark, Edward of, 307, 308 - -————, his son William, 307, 308 - -Stafford, "third penny" of, 289 - -————, Robert de, 289 - -Stamford, 159 - -Stapleton, Mr., on William of Arques, 188, 397 - -Stephen, King, attends Henry I. (as Count of Mortain), 423, 429; - lands in England, 1; - his treaty with the Londoners, 247-249; - his election and coronation, 2-8, 437, 438; - his embassy to Rome, 9, 253-257; - his charters to Miles of Gloucester, 11-14; - visits Oxford, 15; - Durham, 16; - keeps Easter at Westminster, 16-21, 262-265; - his Oxford charter of liberties, 22, 258, 438; - his title to the throne, 25, 29, 258-260; - besieges Shrewsbury, 285; - his movements in 1139, 281-283; - besieges the Empress at Arundel, 55; - his movements in 1140, 46-49; - his first charter to Geoffrey, 49-53, 98, 238; - captured at Lincoln, 54; - imprisoned at Bristol, 56; - receives the primate, 65, 260; - released, 135; - holds council at Westminster, 136; - crowned at Canterbury, 138; - his second charter to Geoffrey, 99, 103, 119, 138-156, 175; - betrays the Londoners, 153; - goes north, 157; - visits Ipswich, 158; - Stamford, 159; - recovers Ely, 411; - ill at Northampton, 160, 164; - restores Nigel to Ely, 161, 412; - captures Wareham, 196; - storms Oxford, 197; - besieges the Empress, 198, 405; - his charters to Abingdon and St. Frideswide's, 201; - recovers Oxford Castle, 406; - besieges Wareham, _ib._; - attends council at London, 202; - routed at Wilton, 407; - arrests Geoffrey at St. Albans, 202-207; - visits Ramsey Abbey, 210; - attacks Geoffrey, 213; - forfeits monks of Ely, 214; - arrests Earl of Chester, 203; - forfeits the primate, 251; - marches to York, 409; - stated to have assisted Henry, 410; - seeks coronation of Eustace, 250, 259; - his seal, 50; - his "fiscal" earls, 276, 277, 295, 440; - his faults, 24, 35, 174, 267, 269; - grant to his brother Theobald, 102, 140; - his forest policy, 377, 378; - papal letters to him, 257, 412 - -Stephen, King, his wife. _See_ MATILDA - -————, his son. _See_ EUSTACE - -————, his nephew, Henry (de Soilli), 262-264 - -Stockbridge (Hants.), 133 - -Stortford. _See_ BISHOP'S STORTFORD - -Stuteville, John de, 403 - -————, Leonia de, 403, 404 - -————, Robert de, 404 - -Sumeri. _See_ SOMERI - -Sussex, question as to "firma" of, 322 - -————, earl of. _See_ ARUNDEL - - -T - -Taid', Jurdan de, 230 - -Talbot, Geoffrey, 182, 263 - -Tamworth, 313, 314 - -Tani, Picot de, 402, 404 - -————, Alice de, 402-404 - -————. _See_ also TANY - -Tankerville, Richard de, 427 - -————, William de, 428 - -Tany, Graeland de, 91, 104, 142 - -————, Hasculf de, 91 - -————, Gilbert de, 91 - -————. _See_ also TANI - -Templars, at Geoffrey's deathbed, 224; - their red cross, _ib._; - retain Geoffrey's corpse, 226 - -Temple (London), the old, 224 - -———— ————, the new, 225, 226, 395 - -Tendring hundred (Essex), 377, 404 - -"Tenserie," 215, 218, 414-416 - -_Terræ datæ._ _See_ CROWN LANDS - -"Tertius denarius," the, 287-296; - grants of the, by the Empress, 292, 293; - by Henry II., 239, 240, 293; - only given to some earls, 269, 293-295; - its two kinds, 287-290; - attached to manors, 291; - amount of, 294. - _See also_ EARLS - -Tewkesbury, spurious charter to, 421, 431, 432 - -Theobald. _See_ BLOIS - -"Third penny," the. _See_ "TERTIUS DENARIUS" - -Thoby Priory, 169 - -Thorney, Robert, abbot of, 413 - -Tilbury by Clare (Essex), 181 - -Tiretei, Maurice de, 228, 229 - -Titles, peerage, origin of, 145. _See also_ EARLS - -Tolleshunt Tregoz (Essex), 142 - -Torigny, castle of, 334 - -Totintone, Warine de, 401 - -"Towers," rectangular keeps termed, 328-331, 333, 336, 338, 341, 343 - -Treason, appeal of, 93, 156, 204, 327 - -Treaties between sovereign and subject, 176 - -Tresgoz, William de, 142 - -Treys-deners, Nicholas, 375 - -Trowbridge (Wilts), 281, 282 - -Tureville, Geoffrey de, 170 - -Turonis (?), Pepin de, 172, 183 - -Turroc', _See_ GREYS THURROCK - - -U - -Ulf the portreeve, 353, 354 - -Umfraville, Gilbert de, 382 - -Usury. _See_ MONEY-LENDING - - -V - -"Vadimonium" (or "Vadium"), 214, 236, 305, 369, 370 - -Valderi, Richard de, 320 - -Valoines, Peter de (I.), 39 - -————, Peter de (II.), 172, 183 - -————, Robert de, 172 - -————, Roger de, 172, 264; - Maud's charter to, 286 - -Venoiz, Robert de, 171 - -Vercorol, Richard de, 231 - -Vere, Aubrey de (I.), great chamberlain, his pedigree, 389, 392; - father-in-law of Geoffrey de Mandeville, 388; - "justiciar of England," 390; - slain (1141), 81, 147, 188, 389; - mentioned, 180, 187, 262, 263, 265, 297, 298, 309, 378, 388-391 - -————, ————, his wife, Alice de Clare, 390 - -————, ————, his brothers, Roger de (brother of Aubrey (I.)), 189, 389; - ——Robert de, 389, 391; - ——William, 389 - -————, Geoffrey (fitz Aubrey) de, 182, 190, 390 - -————, Robert (fitz Aubrey) de, 147, 182 - -————, William (fitz Aubrey) de, 182, 195, 231, 389, 390. - _See_ CHANCELLORS - -————, Alice de, 169, 390 - -————, Aubrey de (II.), Earl of Oxford, 154, 172, 195, 230, 231, 270, - 271, 402; - brother-in-law to Earl Geoffrey de Mandeville, 178; - his charter from the Empress, 179-195; - to be Earl of Cambridgeshire, 181, 191-193; - his charter from Henry of Anjou, 186; - was Count of Guisnes, 188, 189, 240; - became Earl of Oxford, 194, 239; - his charter from St. Edmund's, 189, 439; - from Henry II., 237, 239; - his wife Beatrice, 188, 189, 397; - his arms, 394-396; - his connection with De Rames, 401 - -Ver, Robert (fitz Bernard) de, 46, 144, 147, 148, 158, 201, 262, - 263, 326 - -————, ————, his wife, Adeline de Montford, 326 - - -W - -Wac (Wake), Hugh, 159, 160 - -Wace, authority of, 344 - -Walden. _See_ SAFFRON WALDEN - -Walden Abbey, chronicle of, 38, 45, 203, 205, 210, 388, 390, 393, 395 - -———— ————, William, prior of, 224, 226 - -Walensis, Ralf, 419 - -Wallingford, Stephen besieges, 188, 281; - Empress escapes to, 198, 199, 406; - young Henry at, 419; - charter of Henry II. to, 200 - -Walterville, Geoffrey de, 314, 381 - -Waltham (Essex), 236, 323, 324; - forest, 377 - -Waltham Abbey, Geoffrey's doings at, 323; - avenged, 222 - -———— ————, Chronicle of, 322-324, 439 - -Waltheof, Earl, 192, 276 - -Wareham, 165; - captured by Stephen, 196, 407; - besieged by Earl of Gloucester, 198; - captured by him, 199, 405; - Baldwin lands at, 279; - its defences, 332; - besieged by Stephen, 406, 407 - -Warenne, William, Earl, 120, 143, 145, 158, 206, 262, 263, 265, 430 - -Warranty, 182, 230 - -Warwick, Henry, earl of, 329 - -————, Roger, earl of, 65, 125, 159, 262, 263, 265 - -Warwickshire, "tertius denarius" of, 291 - -Waters, Mr. Chester, on the family of De Raimes, 403; - on the earldom of Gloucester, 421, 432; - his authority, 432 - -Way, Mr. Albert, on the styles of the Empress, 70, 73 - -Welsh, levity of the, 386 - -Westminster, charters tested at, 18, 53, 86, 95, 262-264, 286, 302, - 306, 329, 428, 433 - -————, Herbert, abbot of, 265 - -Weston, 314 - -Wherwell, Empress at, 57; - burning of, 127, 129-131 - -White Ship, loss of the, 423, 428, 429, 434 - -Wickham Bonhunt (Essex), 90, 140 - -Wilton, the Empress at, 65; - affair of, 146, 276, 407 - -Wiltshire, earldom of, 181, 194, 271 - -Winchester, Stephen received at, 4, 47; - Henry I. at, 421, 430, 432; - Empress received at, 57-64; - importance of its possession, 60; - its castle and treasury, 62, 63, 125, 128, 386, 407; - election of the Empress at, 69; - its siege by the Empress, 124-132; - its royal palace, 126, 127 - -————, William (Giffard), bishop of, 329 - -————, Henry, bishop of (and papal legate), 265; - receives Stephen as king, 3, 4; - attends his coronation, 5; - with him at Reading, 11; - at Westminster, 262; - at Oxford, 263; - at Arundel, 55; - receives the Empress, 57; - his mandate to Theobald, 260; - conducts Maud's election, 69; - escorts her, 82, 83, 93; - opposes her as to William Cumin, 85; - deserts her and joins the Queen, 121, 122; - besieged by the Empress, 125; - his palace, 126; - burns Winchester, 127; - restores Stephen, 136; - at his court, 143; - with him at Wilton, 407; - opposed to Nigel of Ely, 413; - goes to Rome, 208; - his letter to Brian Fitz Count, 261; - his covenant with Henry, 386; - papal letters to, 412 - -Windsor, Maurice de (dapifer of St. Edmund's), 190, 439 - -———— Castle, 169; - Henry I. at, 429 - -Wiret, Ralf de, 53 - -Wood Walton, 211 - -Woodham Mortimer (Essex), 141 - -Worcester, Stephen at, 48, 282; - sacked by Miles, 282; - its "third penny," 290 - -————, Castle, 313, 328 - -————, Simon, bishop of, 262, 263, 265 - -————, Theowulf, bishop of, 432 - -Worcestershire, earldom (?) of, 271 - -————, shrievalty of, 313 - -Worth (Wilts), 229, 233 - -Writtle (Essex), 140, 149, 214 - -————, Godebold of, 214 - -Wymondham, the foundation at, 318 - - -Y - -York, Stephen visits, 157, 409 - -————, Roger, archbishop of, 236 - -————, Thurstan, archbishop of, 262, 263, 265, 427, 428, 433 - -————, earldom of, 270, 271, 276 - -————, earl of. _See_ AUMÂLE - -Ypres, William of, in England, 45, 52, 144, 158, 201; - not an earl, 146, 270, 275; - in charge of Kent, 147, 275; - burns Wherwell, 129, 131, 132; - tries to burn St. Albans, 206; - robs Abingdon, 213; - persecutes the Church, 271; - grants to him, 269, 275 - - - - - - - -End of Project Gutenberg's Geoffrey de Mandeville, by John Horace Round - -*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK GEOFFREY DE MANDEVILLE *** - -***** This file should be named 62878-0.txt or 62878-0.zip ***** -This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: - http://www.gutenberg.org/6/2/8/7/62878/ - -Produced by MWS, Chris Pinfield and the Online Distributed -Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was -produced from images generously made available by The -Internet Archive) - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will -be renamed. - -Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright -law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, -so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United -States without permission and without paying copyright -royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part -of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm -concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, -and may not be used if you charge for the eBooks, unless you receive -specific permission. If you do not charge anything for copies of this -eBook, complying with the rules is very easy. You may use this eBook -for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, -performances and research. They may be modified and printed and given -away--you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks -not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the -trademark license, especially commercial redistribution. - -START: FULL LICENSE - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full -Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at -www.gutenberg.org/license. - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or -destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your -possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a -Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound -by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the -person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph -1.E.8. - -1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this -agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the -Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection -of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual -works in the collection are in the public domain in the United -States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the -United States and you are located in the United States, we do not -claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, -displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as -all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope -that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting -free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm -works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the -Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily -comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the -same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when -you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are -in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, -check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this -agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, -distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any -other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no -representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any -country outside the United States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other -immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear -prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work -on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, -performed, viewed, copied or distributed: - - This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and - most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no - restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it - under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this - eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the - United States, you'll have to check the laws of the country where you - are located before using this ebook. - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is -derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not -contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the -copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in -the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are -redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply -either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or -obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any -additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms -will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works -posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the -beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including -any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access -to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format -other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official -version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site -(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense -to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means -of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain -Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the -full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -provided that - -* You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed - to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has - agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid - within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are - legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty - payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in - Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg - Literary Archive Foundation." - -* You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all - copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue - all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm - works. - -* You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of - any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of - receipt of the work. - -* You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than -are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing -from both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and The -Project Gutenberg Trademark LLC, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project -Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may -contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate -or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other -intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or -other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or -cannot be read by your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium -with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you -with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in -lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person -or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second -opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If -the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing -without further opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO -OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT -LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of -damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement -violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the -agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or -limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or -unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the -remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in -accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the -production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, -including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of -the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this -or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or -additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any -Defect you cause. - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm - -Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of -computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It -exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations -from people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future -generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see -Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at -www.gutenberg.org - - - -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by -U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's principal office is in Fairbanks, Alaska, with the -mailing address: PO Box 750175, Fairbanks, AK 99775, but its -volunteers and employees are scattered throughout numerous -locations. Its business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt -Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to -date contact information can be found at the Foundation's web site and -official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact - -For additional contact information: - - Dr. Gregory B. Newby - Chief Executive and Director - gbnewby@pglaf.org - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide -spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND -DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular -state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To -donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. - -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project -Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be -freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and -distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of -volunteer support. - -Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in -the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not -necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper -edition. - -Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search -facility: www.gutenberg.org - -This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. - |